clippedwolf
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 80
A list of heroic characteristics are courageous, skilled, sacrificial, destined, decisive, loyal, selfless, convicted, humble, etc...
These are all celebrated attributes and I don't think that anyone can argue that these are not noble.
If a character had all of these characteristics but was defined by violent action, at what point would this violence and against whom would it make this almost laudable character villainous?
We think of children, for example, as a group that are to be protected. This sentiment is relatively recent in our history. What if an almost noble character killed children of one group in the belief that it would protect his group's children in the future? What if the history of that world supported his belief?
Imagine a (male) hero who acknowledges that a woman could be his equal or even superior, and he would kill a farmer in her field with as little guilt as he cuts down her husband. What if is a heroine who uses her steel against a poorly trained farming couple and their sharp farming instruments? Justify the killers anger to the point where they can retain these previously stated "heroic" characteristics and believe that their ends justify their means.
Right and wrong, good and evil are moral judgments. I believe people and their morality are products of their times, but right now I am asking you, a contemporary reader, can a character be simultaneously heroic and villainous? When does a character go from the "edgy" anti-hero to a full-fledged villain? How far is too far and why?
These are all celebrated attributes and I don't think that anyone can argue that these are not noble.
If a character had all of these characteristics but was defined by violent action, at what point would this violence and against whom would it make this almost laudable character villainous?
We think of children, for example, as a group that are to be protected. This sentiment is relatively recent in our history. What if an almost noble character killed children of one group in the belief that it would protect his group's children in the future? What if the history of that world supported his belief?
Imagine a (male) hero who acknowledges that a woman could be his equal or even superior, and he would kill a farmer in her field with as little guilt as he cuts down her husband. What if is a heroine who uses her steel against a poorly trained farming couple and their sharp farming instruments? Justify the killers anger to the point where they can retain these previously stated "heroic" characteristics and believe that their ends justify their means.
Right and wrong, good and evil are moral judgments. I believe people and their morality are products of their times, but right now I am asking you, a contemporary reader, can a character be simultaneously heroic and villainous? When does a character go from the "edgy" anti-hero to a full-fledged villain? How far is too far and why?