Good=boring? I don't think so.

[Lord Revan]

I've noticed this notion by some people that to be intresting a character must be morally ambigious or outright evil often with a highly cynical attitude, they're not just mass murdering psychopaths or both, with good nature characters deemed to be boring as blanket judgement.

Personally I disagree with this notion heavily, as I stated in another thread, if done poorly I think a "dark and edgy" is more limited then a straight up good guy. Since alot of the character growth a "dark and edgy" will have means loosing that cynical attitude or the murderer will learn that killing because you can isn't OK, which in hands of a good author will make for a good story, however often these characters aren't lead that way, but rather they're locked to the "dark and edgy" persona since that's what makes them "intresting". Also there's the idea that good natured characters are naive or stupid.

A well made good character wouldn't ignore that bad things happen in the world but instead would explain why the character behaves the way he goes and hasn't given into cynicism. Basically what makes or breaks a character be in a book, movie or game is his or her motivations not their "edginess".

What are your thoughts on the matter and do you have examples of characters you think were intresting and why?

(PS:I hope this is the right forum for this kind of discussion).

[Tribble]

You're correct, good isn't boring. Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

[Khaat]

I think the "good = boring" thing grows from personal hero identities (identifying with heroes you would see yourself being)
When life is simple, and playing is about simple things, good is enough.
When you grow older, things become more complicated, and your play may become an outlet for wish-fulfillment; enter the anti-hero.

Classic anti-hero: The Man With No Name. He's a hardened, expert gunfighter (because why play in a gunfighter movie if you aren't going to be awesome at it?), yet has a softer side (he makes sure to share with noone - at least nooone who can exploit it!).

From there, it's just been a matter of scaling: more frustration results in "edgier" or "grittier" or "grim-darkier" antiheroes.

Super-comics:
Superman's only softness is that he's an orphan of a family and planet he never knew. You could even argue he never lost anything: the Kents raised him as their own and only the windfall of his alien super-powers set him apart from who he was raised to believe he was. Clark's tragedy? He's fucking Superman!
Bats lost his parents when he knew them. He reforged his entire being (this is actually the part most Bat-fans eventually admit: "With infinite resources [and motivation] I could be Batman"). Bats' tragedy? Losing people who defined who he was going to become.

You could go wat back: Hercules/Heracles was demigod, yet was driven to kill his family in a rage by Hera. He started with everything, but he had a dark chapter in his story as motivation for the 12 labors. Joined the Argonauts, left when his buddy died. Up! down. Up! down.

Tragedy and weakeness not covered by the hero's "standard defenses" is what drama is about.

The total badassitude in pop-culture? That's all "my dad can beat up your dad", no questions about it.

[Lord Revan]

You're correct, good isn't boring. Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

I assume you're making a Spaceballs reference, but I disagree with that notion as well and more often then not pure evil is alot dumber in a petty way that will ultimately end biting them in the ass.

think the "good = boring" thing grows from personal hero identities (identifying with heroes you would see yourself being)
When life is simple, and playing is about simple things, good is enough.
When you grow older, things become more complicated, and your play may become an outlet for wish-fulfillment; enter the anti-hero.

Classic anti-hero: The Man With No Name. He's a hardened, expert gunfighter (because why play in a gunfighter movie if you aren't going to be awesome at it?), yet has a softer side (he makes sure to share with noone - at least nooone who can exploit it!).

From there, it's just been a matter of scaling: more frustration results in "edgier" or "grittier" or "grim-darkier" antiheroes.

Super-comics:
Superman's only softness is that he's an orphan of a family and planet he never knew. You could even argue he never lost anything: the Kents raised him as their own and only the windfall of his alien super-powers set him apart from who he was raised to believe he was. Clark's tragedy? He's fucking Superman!
Bats lost his parents when he knew them. He reforged his entire being (this is actually the part most Bat-fans eventually admit: "With infinite resources [and motivation] I could be Batman"). Bats' tragedy? Losing people who defined who he was going to become.

You could go wat back: Hercules/Heracles was demigod, yet was driven to kill his family in a rage by Hera. He started with everything, but he had a dark chapter in his story as motivation for the 12 labors. Joined the Argonauts, left when his buddy died. Up! down. Up! down.

Tragedy and weakeness not covered by the hero's "standard defenses" is what drama is about.

The total badassitude in pop-culture? That's all "my dad can beat up your dad", no questions about it.

I suppose that's one way of looking it though obviously things aren't that simple, personally I'm 33 and I got no problems (as it should be obvious) with good natured characters.

In fact I've noticed it's the 13-17 year age range that wants the utter grimdark the most, with most full adults I know preferring a more moderate setting.

[Khaat]

In fact I've noticed it's the 13-17 year age range that wants the utter grimdark the most, with most full adults I know preferring a more moderate setting.

This, I have a specific theory regarding: this is the age where there is often a disconnect between rights and responsibilities. Before they will accept responsibility for the rights they want, they just thrash about in their want. They want to be rude. They want to stay up late. They want to shrug-off authorities, and rules. But they also want some money, and a ride (if you didn't buy them a car). They want to be safe-scared (horror movies, driving too fast/unsafely, etc), they want to scare others ("Call your mother, she worries!").

Young (males) in this age can want to do things, change things, they don't like limits, and grrr! a lot. They want to measure up, be taken seriously, but still haven't really stepped up to age-appropriate responsibilities. This is reflected in their "heroes": their hero-identifiers do what they want, when they want, and noone is going to stop them! The limits they see adults accept (as part of an orderly, productive society) frustrate them, so they lash out (figuratively or literally), sometimes with full knowledge that they won't be able to get away with "that kind of behavior" in a few years without facing grown-up consequences.

Grimdark also allows them to sever ties (read: responsibilities, relationships): "Warmaster Horus/Lobo's mom never tells him he has to clean his room!" (or maybe she does, I dunno)

[Simon_Jester]

I've noticed this notion by some people that to be intresting a character must be morally ambigious or outright evil often with a highly cynical attitude, they're not just mass murdering psychopaths or both, with good nature characters deemed to be boring as blanket judgement.

Such people are complete idiots, people with no morals, people who are totally incapable of thoughtful understanding of ideas... or some combination of the three.

There, that's my opinion.

[Cykeisme]

A lot of other good observations in this thread, let me add my lame obvious one..

I don't think there's a correlation between good/boring and bad/interesting.
Usually what's interesting is when there's conflict between the character's morals and the experiences he has, which force him to grow and change.

A "good" guy being forced to kill, lie, cheat and steal, or even commit horrible horrible atrocities, for the greater good.
Or a "bad" guy realizing that his new companions are worth risking his life to save, even those he's always been self-serving before.

Kinda obvious, yeah.
But when done well, it's stuff like that which makes characters less boring.. not whether they started off good or bad to begin with.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that a lot of people have confused "realistic" and "dark". I also think some people have confused "flawed" and "complex" and "evil". Realistic, flawed, and complex are all good qualities in a character, but its a fine line between that and making a character an unsympathetic asshole, if not an outright monster. And of course, opinions will differ on where that line is.

Though I suspect that a lot of it is just phallically-challenged assholes wanking off to "bad ass" sociopathic characters in an attempt to show how tough and macho and edgy they are by liking those characters.

Edit: Of course, if a character is supposed to be an unsympathetic asshole, or a monster, that's another thing.

[Civil War Man]

I'd say two of the best examples are Sam Vimes and Carrot Ironfoundersson from the Discworld City Watch books. Granted, Vimes is incredibly cynical, but he's cynical without being dark (and, in fact, his cynicism is a major reason as to why he's a good guy). And Carrot is a great example of a character who is aggressively good and idealistic without being foolish or naive.

[Thanas]

Good is not boring per se.

What is boring however is an absolute good person with no flaws whatsoever and being just better....because he is. Superman is a good example of that. I utterly find him a boring character. This also oftentimes hinders the performances of actors - if you give an actor nothing to work with re: character background performances tend to be bland and uninspiring.

[Lord Revan]

Good is not boring per se.

What is boring however is an absolute good person with no flaws whatsoever and being just better....because he is. Superman is a good example of that. I utterly find him a boring character. This also oftentimes hinders the performances of actors - if you give an actor nothing to work with re: character background performances tend to be bland and uninspiring.

true but my point was that the reverse is true as well and that having flaws doesn't make more intresting automatically and a character that's nothing but flaws with no redeeming elements is just as boring and bland as a flawless hero.

hell a poorly done flaw might make "flawed hero" worse then a flawless one.

[TheFeniX]

Wolverine has always been more popular than Cyclops. Some of this has to do with Wolverine being the bad boy with a heart of gold and Cyclops being a stick in the mud who happens to be dating a hot redhead. But a lot of this also has to do with Cyclops being written for shit, while Wolverine gets the lions share of interesting backstory and plot arcs. Comics, cartoons, movies: doesn't matter the venue.

Poorly written "goody goody" characters get "good guys" passed off as "boring" as a matter of fact when they aren't. If anything, Scott is just as prone as Logan to being a gigantic dick, but he doesn't have anything else to fall back on because he is so flat. I could rant at length about that, but I'll move on.

Looking at some movies that made all the money out there: Jake Sully from Avatar is a good guy. In fact, his whole characterization is pretty flat, but the character itself really isn't all that boring even though Worthington isn't that great an actor. But there was never a time you'd think he'd sell out the Navi. Jack from Titanic. Yea, he gambles and lies a bit. Still probably the most ethical and noble person on the ship. Harry Potter. Seriously? I'm a good guy, and I would have thrown Ron under the bus at light-speed for a shot with Hermione: The man is a fucking saint.

Unless you're an edgy teenager: Good isn't boring. But there's multiple examples of poorly written good being boring. But hardasses have something to fall back on when the writing is bad because (at least IMO) we're only now really getting saturated with "dickbag protagonists."

This thread does remind me of the WoW forum poster brigade of Horde who claim "Humans = Boring," which is why Blizzard is all ORCSORCSORCSORCS, when the real explanation is that Blizzard is nearly incapable of telling original stories. So having a "green human" be the emphasis of cliche and trite garbage somehow makes it original. You know, because they are stupid.

[Channel72]

I've noticed this notion by some people that to be intresting a character must be morally ambigious or outright evil often with a highly cynical attitude, they're not just mass murdering psychopaths or both, with good nature characters deemed to be boring as blanket judgement.

Eh... I don't know. I haven't really seen that sort of notion very prominently. But it's definitely the case that people tend to prefer characters who aren't simply bland good guys with no streak of cynicism or immorality. It's basically why most people think Han Solo is cooler than Luke Skywalker.

What you seem to be referring to are "anti-heros" - usually meaning somewhat villainous assholes who end up working/fighting for a good cause.

Good is not boring per se.

What is boring however is an absolute good person with no flaws whatsoever and being just better....because he is. Superman is a good example of that. I utterly find him a boring character. This also oftentimes hinders the performances of actors - if you give an actor nothing to work with re: character background performances tend to be bland and uninspiring.

Yeah, I agree. What's strange is that the reverse usually isn't true. I mean, a straight up evil character, who is simply evil for the fuck of it, can often be interesting - because evil characters are usually more defined by style than anything else. I mean, let's face it, a lot of the bad guys we like are just evil assholes with no redeeming qualities, who are evil for pretty much no reason. Darth Vader (in the original Star Wars at least) is just an ass-kicking bad guy. Sauron is basically just a stand-in for pure evil personified. The Joker is just a psychopath with no redeeming qualities. Yet, most people find these characters very interesting. They're certainly not as boring as Superman, at least.

Yeah, a bad guy can be even more interesting if there's some redeeming qualities he has which make him overall more complex (like Hannibal Lecter, who is classy and sometimes does nice things), but somehow it seems easier to come up with a zero-dimensional evil bastard and make it interesting, whereas making a zero-dimensional purely virtuous good guy always seems boring.

[General Zod]

So where does The Doctor fit? He's a solid example of a "good guy" who's not boring I'd think.

[Thanas]

He also is not a really good guy - depending on the interpretation he is an outright bad person who does bad things or has monumental fuckups due to sheer incompetence.

[TheFeniX]

Darth Vader (in the original Star Wars at least) is just an ass-kicking bad guy. Sauron is basically just a stand-in for pure evil personified.

There's really a reason why Darth Vader is iconic: The costume combined with James Earl Jones' performance. Thulsa Doom had to be the most cliche of fantasy bad guys, but he's also iconic just due to that voice and aesthetic choices of the character.

The Joker is just a psychopath with no redeeming qualities. Yet, most people find these characters very interesting. They're certainly not as boring as Superman, at least.

The Joker has certain mannerisms depending on the iteration. Not a comic book guy, but Hamil brought a lot to the role in the cartoons and the animators did great work with him and Harley Quinn. I think Batman was given some of his best performances in The Brave and the Bold when he was allowed to have interactions apart from Super Villians and Gordon. Some of the best Batman dialog ever. The Green Lantern shit was hilarious.

What mannerisms does Superman really have? What hooks? He's basically a costume and a pair of glasses. What writers can sometimes forget is that "good guys" do stupid shit, whether due to immaturity and just.... stupidity. They can be smug, they can be jerks. The only time I can really think of him being tolerable was a Mzylplizecwisldnfs (sp) whatever guy episode. The whole thing is Superman conning him into saying his name (backwards) over and over and Mizzy complaining to his stupidly hot wife about it when he gets ported back to whatever fantasy universe he came from.

Superman was able to pull off a smug "I'm so much fucking better than you" schtick which made me not hate him for 23 minutes. Even boy scouts are allowed to be smug.

[Lord Revan]

I'd say that the Doctor in most cases is an anti-hero done well, while he goes questionble things but there's generally little malice to his actions and he's honestly a "good guy" at heart or at least try to be.

[Lord Revan]

actually of the "straight up evil" characters mentioned all have something that makes them intresting in a way.

with Vader it's the connection with Obi-wan and later Luke that makes him intresting even after the novelty of him being a badass in a cool armor fades.

With the Joker it's his insanity that makes him intresting, the fact that he can be calm and collected about a defeat and act like a psychotic 2 year old, so he isn't really "pure" evil since for all his psychotic tendencies he doesn't always act evil that's what makes the Joker intresting (in addition to proving a counterpoint to Batman).

As for Sauron, he's actually more of a presence then a true character, if you've read the Lord of the Rings books Sauron does actually very little personally there but he's the enabler for the other villains.

As for Superman I think the best Superman story I've seen was the Captain Marvel/Shazam story from Justice League Unlimited since it showed Superman as someone who has flaws without outright destroying his character (what little there is).

[Thanas]

Yeah, I agree. What's strange is that the reverse usually isn't true. I mean, a straight up evil character, who is simply evil for the fuck of it, can often be interesting - because evil characters are usually more defined by style than anything else. I mean, let's face it, a lot of the bad guys we like are just evil assholes with no redeeming qualities, who are evil for pretty much no reason. Darth Vader (in the original Star Wars at least) is just an ass-kicking bad guy. Sauron is basically just a stand-in for pure evil personified. The Joker is just a psychopath with no redeeming qualities. Yet, most people find these characters very interesting. They're certainly not as boring as Superman, at least.

Yeah, a bad guy can be even more interesting if there's some redeeming qualities he has which make him overall more complex (like Hannibal Lecter, who is classy and sometimes does nice things), but somehow it seems easier to come up with a zero-dimensional evil bastard and make it interesting, whereas making a zero-dimensional purely virtuous good guy always seems boring.

Also, competence. A villain always has to demonstrate competence in something, else he is completely uninteresting. For example see Hans Landa. This puts the villain at an obvious advantage, for people tend to respect skill.

OTOH, "good" guys often are not as convincing or interesting if they win by act of plot.

[General Zod]

I'd say that the Doctor in most cases is an anti-hero done well, while he goes questionble things but there's generally little malice to his actions and he's honestly a "good guy" at heart or at least try to be.

That's not really an anti-hero the way I see it. Anti-Heroes are guys that only really end up doing the right thing as a byproduct of all the other stuff they're doing.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Honestly I don't think you can put a label on the Doctor given how long a history he has, and all the different personalities he's had. He is the Doctor, that's probably the best we can do.

[Crazedwraith]

While I've not seen all the classic Doctors. I think that's an exaggeration. He's a hero... with varying amounts of grumpiness and snark.

[Agent Sorchus]

Also, competence. A villain always has to demonstrate competence in something, else he is completely uninteresting. For example see Hans Landa. This puts the villain at an obvious advantage, for people tend to respect skill.

OTOH, "good" guys often are not as convincing or interesting if they win by act of plot.

You guys are getting closer, however you're still just off the truth. Style and competency are only a consequences of the real cause for interest, and that is agency. Every single bad guy has it, and many good guys lack it. Luke Skywalker is boring because for all he imagines being interesting in the world his own dreams of the future are pretty simplistic and common. "Join the academy and become a pilot and then I can get involved maybe", he only accepts the call to heroism in reaction to being given no choice in the matter. Meanwhile Darth Vader is working to hunt down the Rebellion and remake the world into his own dark vission, even breaking with the orders of the emperor so that he can persue his own agenda.

This is especially true when you consider batman and superman. Superman is often times a reactive force, simply because he is so powerful that any thing he sets out to accomplish is almost assured to happen; so the writers have him be subdued, and restrtict him to being a 'role model' for humanity rather than do any greater action to change the world. Whereas Batman has a vision of the future of gotham and is working hard to try and impliment it, both in his vigilante actions and as Bruce Wayne.

And while most villians don't have a vision for the world, they do have ideas and dreams for the future and they actively pursue them. It is what makes them villians afterall. (And while the joker is an exception, I would say that he is the exception that proves the rule rather than upsetting it.)

PS In comparison to Luke both Rey and Fin come out ahead on agency, though Rey ownly barely. Fin is actively trying to desert or defect, Rey is willing to help, though she would perfer to return to her home.

[Eternal_Freedom]

While I've not seen all the classic Doctors. I think that's an exaggeration. He's a hero... with varying amounts of grumpiness and snark.

In the very beginning he was very much intended to be an anti-hero, until a human showed him he was wrong.

Of course, the Doctor might be the ultimate example of how a hero isn't automatically a good person.

[Lord Revan]

While I've not seen all the classic Doctors. I think that's an exaggeration. He's a hero... with varying amounts of grumpiness and snark.

In the very beginning he was very much intended to be an anti-hero, until a human showed him he was wrong.

Of course, the Doctor might be the ultimate example of how a hero isn't automatically a good person.

well I'd say for most part the Doctor is good though he might not be nice, he's grumpy and not terribly polite but generally has good intentions.

that said some doctors had times when they were not so good.