From [url=https://www.tentonhammer.com/grumpy-gamer/alignment]this article[/url] from some website:
This is unfortunate, because Evil characters are arguably the most interesting when they are done right. Good guys have no depth - they don't need a reason for what they do, they fight for Right and Justice and blah blah blah. That's kind of boring. It's far more interesting to follow the chain of events and train of thought that creates a villain...
I shall begin by saying that I such oversimplifications typically strike me to be vaguely offensive. On a positive note, it did bring me to stop to think about what the author wrote. There is no question that a great many people have a preference for the 'bad guy'. While the reasons for this are legion (undoubtedly heavily influenced by most of us falling into the vague category of the 'law abiding good guy') and relevant to the discussion, I will focus on the primary offender:
"Good guys have no depth."[color=red]*[/color]
It is rather awkward that the author proceeds to contradict himself. Naturally, fighting for right and justice are reasons for heroes to do what they do. Perhaps he meant to say that a hero does not need a reason to fight for right and justice, since we recognize those to be intrinsically good and worth upholding. There are no lack of stories of people who are aggressed while bystanders do every honor to that word. Most of these bystanders are, undoubtedly, such 'law abiding good guys' (LAGG) who recognize right and justice to be intrinsically good and worth upholding. But they did not fight for right and justice. Clearly, a hero has a certain [i]je ne sais quoi[/i] that these LAGGs lack. Actually, there's scarcely any mystery to it: the hero has the willingness to fight for right and justice.
To review, a hero has a willingness to fight for right and justice (and is therefore a hero, to wax tautological). Done? Done! Good work, folks.
"Good guys have no depth", indeed.
This brings me to the actual point and question. Are heroes merely two-dimensional or does the failing primarily lie with authors who are willing to be satisfied with that tautological crutch? I say that there is no aspect of the villain's story or being that cannot be as easily and effectively applied to the hero. The villain is not some magical catalyst or coat hanger of excellent stories. As with any artistic creation, it is the creator's skill and effort that determine whether the result is mediocre or memorable and moving.
Speaking of irony, the author essentially makes the very same point:
Ironically, it's also why so many fans were so disappointed when essentially the same thing happened to Darth Vader in the Star Wars prequels. Not because that journey wasn't also interesting, but because Anakin Skywalker's transition from Neutral Good to Lawful Evil was slapdash and hokey.
Conclusion: bad guys have no depth.
Hardly.
If someone tells me good guys are boring, I will accept that. That is a subjective statement. It is no more true or false than stating that peanut chicken is delicious. If a character lacks depth, I cannot conclude that they are a 'good guy'. All I can conclude is that the character's creator was lazy.
With that I am done preaching to the choir.
Thank you.
[br]
[color=red]*[/color] Let us ignore the author's implication that good guys cannot be "done right".
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
It has been said that heroes are defined by those who oppose them. Batman has tremendous depth in part because many of his opponents do.
SOME heroes are two-dimensional. The same can be said for SOME villains. One of the issues is that you can only tell the same story so many different ways. You could actually lay out a template of what makes heroes and villains do what they do and then build all your characters from there if you wanted. It would certainly be more uniform. Again...uniform can be boring.
Think of some GOOD heroes and villains in your opinion. Ask yourself what makes them stand out from the herd. Much of this is highly subjective but that's ok.
Dr Doom: A REAL villain. Wants to conquer the world and makes no excuses about it. Why? Because he simply feels he's the most fit to rule. I'd like to see a What If issue or miniseries that explored a Doom-ruled world. It would be utterly draconian and harsh but there would be no crime, no hunger and no war.
Spider-Man: The people's hero. He only wants to help others...a noble endeavor.
The Joker: 'Some men just want to watch the world burn.' Yeah...that's Mr. J. He's nutty as a treeful of squirrels.
Captain America: Very much like Spider-Man but more patriotic. Wants to help people but is also a believer in the chain of command. Willing to sacrifice his life for the good of others.
And so on and so on. Most heroes want to help others. They have other goals as well (defend the country, protect mutants, whatever) but part of being heroic is being willing to put others first. Kinda hard to not have that in there somewhere. On the flip side most villains want something and they're willing to do what others will not to get it. Some, like Mr Freeze from Batman the Animated Series, want to save loved ones from a disease. This motivation lacked forethought as Bruce could simply have PAID for the research and eliminated Freeze as a danger. Some villains want money, power, and the things that come with them. Many fail to see that these things are not tough to get given the capabilities of the typical villain.
This is why, on some level, most villains have to be at least a little crazy. If they weren't, they'd wise up after the first go-around with the local hero and go legit. The Penguin likes riches and good living. I see LOTS of millionaires with that that will NEVER be caught by a hero because what they do is legal. Now the Riddler likes the contest of wills...a test of his opponent's mind. He's willing to harm others to get that rush. So...a bit crazy.
After the first few (hundred) heroes and villains the stories get stale. Sure, some of them have aged and gotten overly cliche'. Some are (literally) immortal like Galactus. What we need to do is try to take what is best about the stories we love (good guys doing good, bad guys being bad) and present them in a way that will shine new light on them. A tall order to be sure.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
La la la la la <--- Showing I'm in the choir.
Agreed: whether a character is 2D or deep is hardly tied to alignment.
However, peanut chicken is NOT delicious! :-)
Spurn all ye kindle.