Do good guys want to be immortal?

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I just realized that the only characters I know of that actively seek to live forever are antagonists. '_'

In fact, there's kind of an anti-immortality trend in most fantasy stories (at least the ones I've heard of). The idea of living forever is either inherently immoral ('upsets the balance of nature', or can only be made possible by sacrificing others) or painted as a really sad, bittersweet fate ('everyone I love dies, and I'm always left behind, boohoo').

I've never experienced a story where living forever is portrayed as a positive goal that a protagonist might want to reach, outside of stories concerning the afterlife (but in those it's more of a question of 'living' forever as opposed to suffering forever/being stuck in limbo).

Personally, I think this trend might just be humanity trying to make itself feel better. ^^; We're stuck in a reality where everything must die, so one of the 'morals' we've come up with to put in our stories is that that's how it's supposed to be. Sure, immortal characters and deities exist, but we, as the main character, the everyman, the quintessential 'good person', are not supposed to want to be them.

Or are we?

Based on what little I know of Japanese folklore, I have a feeling it might not be as much of a "forbidden desire" in Eastern literature...although, I still can't think of any truly aspirational examples.

And if you want my thoughts on it: I wouldn't mind living forever. ^^; I can very easily conceive of ways to live a happy, never-ending life...and considering the inorganic nature of my many robotic characters, I'm kind of used to it at this point. Mortality and immortality are just two different kinds of existences to me; neither one more 'right' than the other.

[cherrystark]

In fact, there's kind of an anti-immortality trend in most fantasy stories (at least the ones I've heard of). The idea of living forever is either inherently immoral ('upsets the balance of nature', or can only be made possible by sacrificing others) or painted as a really sad, bittersweet fate ('everyone I love dies, and I'm always left behind, boohoo').

I think the biggest factor in the whole "immortality" debate is love. Love and companionship are two factors that make us human. We need love to survive. I think if you gave a character the option to live forward with their family and people they care about, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Immortal characters, even the angsty ones like Edward Cullen, often describe immortality as a curse (as you said). They watch everyone they love die so they tend to fall into a depression and cut themselves off from human interactions, wishing for death. It would be torture for a truly good character to live forever without someone they love. It's not unheard of for people to die within hours/days of the person they truly loved.

For the villain, they often don't aren't portrayed as third-dimensional characters. They are generally only driven by the need for power of some kind. So if the villain character was given the opportunity to essentially "keep" the power they wanted for ever, they're going to choose immortality.

[RosesnWater]

Honestly this is such a neat question and there are so many ways to answer it based on so many religions and myths and cultures.

I used to be team ‘let the vampire bite me, I want to live forever’ but working through my own novel there’s a reason there is something of an immorality to immortality (at least in the sense of a physical existence)

Without diving into it too much or subscribing to anyone kind of ideology you could just look at it as matter, as the body recycling through existence, the reason we die is to feed into the constant rebirth of Life, (something about mufasa, we become the grass, antelope eat the grass and so on) the reason why it’s thought of ‘immoral’ is because for something to live, another thing must pass on, after all matter can’t be created or destroyed so there’s a limited amount no matter how vast the universe feels. If we were all a bunch of immortals Nothing would be able to come forward, nothing would change and since change is nature’s most important quality it’s hard not to see the bad in syphoning off the resources of the universe Because it really does stop the process of life. Stars are probably the most beautiful and powerful things in the galaxy, but in order for the human race to exist a star had to die.

[therosesword]

According to my Forensics Prof from the moment of conception we are on a trajectory toward death, so "suck it up sunshine and make the most of the time you've got." True quote there. He was not one to make nice.

[domisotto]

Immortality without eternal youth is certainly a curse. But youth is a very short part of any human’s life, so looking to return youth is a rejection of older self. Ultimately it is hard to like a character who is willing to pay any price for a goal without altruism.

However, the everyday, regular immortality, accessible to every human, in spawning, teaching and protecting the next generation, is commonly used as laudable motivation for protagonists.

[amortelito]

It's easy to want to be immortal...until people you truly love die. I always thought that if you had an immortal life you could start over and meet new people, but in reality you never stop missing people who are gone. Plus sometimes I don't even want to wake up to live the current day, I can't imagine living forever. Fighting forever to have a life, food, roof, basic necessities, etc. I'm still scared of dying and sometimes I wish we all could just be in a bubble where we we don't age and we don't die. Mortality is a very harsh reality.

On the bright side of mortality is that horrible people die, and sometimes is the only way to stop them from harming others, so I'm glad there is no option.

[TheGentleArtist]

In the afterlife? Sure cause religion

On the living world? Nah. Living longer would be nice, but forever is a lot to bear.In the short run, it would be nice; but in the long run. It can get to you, even with: moving on, doing the same routine, changing the routine, etc,. Plus, it depends on what kind of immortality.
Though, you do miss people who are gone and you truly love; your brain eventually forgets them to make room for more information. Plus, you eventually just become indifferent. Then, you're just existing without a purpose and that is not a good life to live.

I do have an OC that lives an extremely long life akin to immortality and is pretty much "meh" to a lot of stuff, even though she can jump to different realities; repetition caught up and all the emotional turmoil all but dried. So, she is just existing

Also, villains want to live forever to keep control, reign terror and what not. Though, I'm pretty sure they would get bored too.

Protagonists living forever and be happy with it is mostly if they are granted immortality so that they can do good. This is mostly given by the deities that they may worship.

[DiegoPalacios]

Time is the most valuable resource we have, so wanting more of it is natural to some degree.

That being said, people want a good time, hopefully without suffering. No eternity is often considered better than an eternity of suffering.

People who want to become immortal want it for a reason. It can be for selfish reasons like power or altruistic reasons like using their eternal experience to make the world better.

The reason the search of inmortality is more common on villains is because they are often more driven and proactive towards their goal. (pasive/reactive antagonists are very rare)

[nathanKmcwilliams]

I...really want to see a story with a good guy seeking immortality now. This is an interesting concept. There's got to be a way to make it work.

Like...hmm...what if the protagonist somehow learns of something happening in the distant future and then decides to become immortal, because no one believes them. Of course...there's a lot of workshopping to be done on this, but...Hmmm...

[rajillustration]

I feel like a lot of religion is about good guys being immortal because they're like...a god (or literally God with a capital G). It isn't necessarily a bad thing to want in fiction, especially if it's about achieving enlightenment, or becoming immortal in order to serve the mortal. It's more a bad thing if characters want to become a god, but fall victim to their own hubris. So if they want to be god, but make an unrighteous dominon--so ones like Light from Deathnote, or that big bad I can't remember the name of in Fullmetal Alchemist...or Satan, even, would fit the bill.

[But_a_Jape]

I'd say the reason good guys are rarely written as pursuing immortality is because seeking power, especially power that is beyond a normal human's capability, is typically tied to our perceptions of villainy. It's the whole idea of how good people shouldn't pursue power, but should be responsible with the power that is thrust upon them ("Great power, great responsibility, etc."). So sometimes you'll see heroes be "rewarded" with immortality (i.e. ascending to godhood) for their virtues in life, but never because they were actively working towards it specifically.

But this idea has me thinking of something tangential to the topic: why are heroes typically not active drivers of the plot? Why are heroes rarely the ones actively trying to create a better world and instead just preventing/reversing harm (i.e. maintaining the status quo)? My personal theory: because it allows the writer to avoid telling you what a "better world" is. If the hero is trying to change the world, and the story is trying to tell you that their views are the "right" views, then the writer is explicitly telling the audience "This is what I think the world should be like" - and that's a huge risk. For one, the writer now opens themselves up to debate and criticism of their moral views. Two, the writer risks making the audience feel like they're being lectured to, and no one likes that (just ask anyone who's read through John Galt's 60-page speech from Atlas Shrugged [i.e. not me]).

So how does this go back to good guys seeking immortality? If you make this your hero's quest, then you're going to have to give the audience a convincing enough reason why this specific person deserves immortality. And to do that, you need to show people what they do with that immortality and why they knew, that out of all the people in the world, they deserved it. And I don't know about you, but I'm not confident enough in my ability to write that kind of character,

[R.n.P]

I've watched too much gintama to know how depressing it would be

[DokiDokiTsuna]

But this idea has me thinking of something tangential to the topic: why are heroes typically not active drivers of the plot? Why are heroes rarely the ones actively trying to create a better world and instead just preventing/reversing harm (i.e. maintaining the status quo)? My personal theory: because it allows the writer to avoid telling you what a "better world" is. If the hero is trying to change the world, and the story is trying to tell you that their views are the "right" views, then the writer is explicitly telling the audience "This is what I think the world should be like" - and that's a huge risk.

You make a lot of really good points, and this is one of them. ^^ I'd just like to point out that active protagonists aren't quite as rare as they seem. They're certainly not in the majority of all stories, but there are a few genres filled with MC's that don't wait around for the plot to happen to them: notably, dystopian fiction.

Although it's probably also worth noting that a large portion of stories with the plot "the world is bad->we'll make it better" are just lumped in with dystopian fiction...even if maybe they shouldn't be?
For example, the Hunger Games...I don't think Panem is particularly dystopian. ^^; It's got science-fiction elements, sure, but if you ignore those, it's a more or less realistic place. People either put up with or explicitly ignore the problems of their society; they're not walking around half-brainwashed like in 1984.

But if "a society whose leaders/elite praise it endlessly even though they're pretty much the only ones who benefit from its organization" is all it takes to be a dystopia...what are we living in now? 6_6
Makes you wonder if we have such an abundance of passive, "never hit first" protagonists for a reason...but now I'm going even further off on a tangent. =P

So how does this go back to good guys seeking immortality? If you make this your hero's quest, then you're going to have to give the audience a convincing enough reason why this specific person deserves immortality. And to do that, you need to show people what they do with that immortality and why they knew, that out of all the people in the world, they deserved it.

I don't know if that's really true...it kinda depends on how you portray immortality in your own story.

Like, if you've made it something that only belongs to saints or gods, or otherwise really good and wise people, and your protagonist wants in on that, then yeah, you're gonna have to work hard to justify it if they do reach their goal (sounds really interesting, albeit challenging to write~).

But if you've made it just a * thing * you can attain if you do x, y, and z (like in an alchemical context) then you don't have to work so hard. I mean, how many anime are centered around "I really wanna be the greatest popstar/warrior/hero in [insert super fighting force]"? If you really think about it, a quest for immortality shouldn't be much different from that sort of plot, apart from the fact that it's so rare.

Although, like you said, I think it is a good idea to focus more on what the character wants to do with an eternal existence. In most of those overdone plots, the character only wants to be x because...because. ^^; Like it was "always" their dream, or their father/sibling was one, or they met someone who was one and thought they were really cool...the rationale behind their motivations is usually really shallow and we're kinda just supposed to accept it.
But with something like immortality, or any unusual power, you have an opportunity to dive into the character's mindset and explain why gaining an ability like that would be their path to self-actualization.

[summer_coefficient]

Hell no.
Chances of being trapped under something forever jump to 100%

[ble]

I have seen good guys already being immortal, not that they wanted to, but didn't have much choice in the matter.

Like Highlander or I guess some versions of Deadpool count as a good guy.

But it's usually viewed as a curse.

[Legendofgenii]

I wouldn't mind living forever. ^^; I can very easily conceive of ways to live a happy, never-ending life

You’d have all the time in the world.

Personally, I’d miss my loved ones but - Hey I might get my comic finished. 🤣

[But_a_Jape]

Although it's probably also worth noting that a large portion of stories with the plot "the world is bad->we'll make it better" are just lumped in with dystopian fiction...even if maybe they shouldn't be?For example, the Hunger Games...I don't think Panem is particularly dystopian. ^^; It's got science-fiction elements, sure, but if you ignore those, it's a more or less realistic place. People either put up with or explicitly ignore the problems of their society; they're not walking around half-brainwashed like in 1984.

But if "a society whose leaders/elite praise it endlessly even though they're pretty much the only ones who benefit from its organization" is all it takes to be a dystopia...what are we living in now? 6_6 Makes you wonder if we have such an abundance of passive, "never hit first" protagonists for a reason...but now I'm going even further off on a tangent. =P

Yeah, I knew dystopian fiction was an exception to what I was talking about - didn't want to get into it because if I got into all the nuances of my ideas about this, I'd be writing an entire series of essays. Figured I'd just wait for someone to point it out and then I'd respond.

The thing with dystopian fiction is that in order to be a dystopia, the world is often clearly, and often exaggeratedly, much worse than our own. Contrary to your opinion on Hunger Games, I believe Panem clearly falls on this end. It's not a dystopia because it's "a society whose leaders/elite praise it endlessly even though they're pretty much the only ones who benefit from its organization," it's because of the literal Hunger Games - they pit children in death matches and watch it for entertainment. As bad as the world is, we are clearly not at the point, nor are we even close to that point. Yes, it's a metaphor for how the current world operates, but taken at complete face value, we are not at Hunger Game levels of depravity.

So, going back to the "active villains, passive heroes" thing, dystopian fiction avoids this by making the world so starkly terrible compared to our own that the dystopia itself goes against our perception of status quo. Often, whatever the good guys are fighting for is something incredibly abstract ("freedom"), a world that very closely resembles our own (overthrowing the Empire to install a democracy/republic), or a world that with an equally exaggerated ideal that at least comports with the "status quo" of a "good ending" (overthrow the bad king and install the good king).

Putting aside dystopian fiction, most other fiction with clearly defined "good guys" and "bad guys" follow the "passive heroes" trope when the world is our own, or at least strongly resembles our own (e.g. superhero media) or is presented as a utopia (e.g. Star Trek). If our world actually had people with the abilities presented in DC or Marvel comics, those implications would so completely upend society that to follow it logically would lead to a world almost incomparable to our own. But readers want to see Spider-Man swinging around our New York, so he needs to keep as far away from actually changing the world as possible and stop the ones who threaten to create massive change (i.e. supervillains).

I don't know if that's really true...it kinda depends on how you portray immortality in your own story.

Most of my commentary on this topic is pretty much only touching upon "mainstream" storytelling - the kind of stories that aren't trying to subvert established tropes and upend the genre, the kind of stories that have a clear "good guy" and "bad guy" and leaves most audiences satisfied. So of course, all of this depends on "how you write your story" - I'm trying to communicate why the quest for immortality is so often considered the realm of villainy and not heroism. And it's the same reason most stories will have a "happy ending" instead of a "sad ending" - because if you want your sad ending to work, you'll need to put a lot more effort into your story than if you did a happy ending. A skilled writer can do it, but most won't.

But if you've made it just a * thing * you can attain if you do x, y, and z (like in an alchemical context) then you don't have to work so hard. I mean, how many anime are centered around "I really wanna be the greatest popstar/warrior/hero in [insert super fighting force]"? If you really think about it, a quest for immortality shouldn't be much different from that sort of plot, apart from the fact that it's so rare.

That goes back to my point about powers that are beyond human (or what your story portrays as human) capability. Goals of "being the greatest x" is still firmly within human capability - everyone in the x group is already human, so whoever's greatest at it could only be human. Almost everyone can empathize with that goal. But if you make it something as specific and unattainable (in the real world, this isn't rare, it's impossible [at least for now...]) as immortality, then that's an extra level of abstraction that compromises the ability for audiences to relate. Of course, you can make immortality a quality of becoming a member of the x group the hero wants to be, but the immortality itself shouldn't be the reason your hero wants to be x. And if it is, you'll have to put a lot more effort into justifying that motivation.

[Dysis]

Why would the good guys want to be immortal? They are already saddened by the bad in this planet.

[LCT_m_a_d]

to me... There is something very special about limitations and being able to accept them that allows us to respect what we are limited/privy to.

Valuing the life we have as ephemeral can motivate us to contribute in ways that will "live on". Often I think of things such as virtuous and shared like Kindness and Long-suffering, as opposed to material ownership and financial prosperity.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

It's not a dystopia because it's "a society whose leaders/elite praise it endlessly even though they're pretty much the only ones who benefit from its organization," it's because of the literal Hunger Games - they pit children in death matches and watch it for entertainment. As bad as the world is, we are clearly not at the point, nor are we even close to that point.

See, but if you decide THAT's what makes HG a dystopia...what about 1984?? I read it a long time ago, but as I recall, nothing super dramatic or 'depraved' is happening in that world; just an eternal war with another country (to which we in the US can definitely relate).

What makes it a dystopia, and what I would say is the "true" definition of dystopia, is that the citizens truly believe (or at least profess) that they live in a perfect world, despite the glaring issues that we as the reader can understand. Even the most downtrodden don't see themselves as being abused by the system...they may admit to feeling pain/sadness, but they find it ultimately acceptable. Not just tolerable, acceptable.

By those metrics, the Hunger Games doesn't qualify, despite its depraved traditions (and 'depraved' is honestly subjective...watching people beating each other unconscious until they'd sustained too much brain damage to go on anymore (i.e. boxing) used to be big in this country).

...Shoot, I should've started a new topic about this. ^^; Since half the discussion's already been had, though, it's not gonna be fun anymore...

If our world actually had people with the abilities presented in DC or Marvel comics, those implications would so completely upend society that to follow it logically would lead to a world almost incomparable to our own. But readers want to see Spider-Man swinging around our New York, so he needs to keep as far away from actually changing the world as possible and stop the ones who threaten to create massive change (i.e. supervillains).

^THIS THIS THIS
This is so good! I would quote the entire second half but this reply is already unnecessarily long...

Two new topics...I should have started two new topics...>_<

Goals of "being the greatest x" is still firmly within human capability - everyone in the x group is already human, so whoever's greatest at it could only be human. Almost everyone can empathize with that goal. But if you make it something as specific and unattainable (in the real world, this isn't rare, it's impossible [at least for now...]) as immortality, then that's an extra level of abstraction that compromises the ability for audiences to relate.

At this point, I think there are already 'impossible' goals that audiences have simply been trained to relate to. Like, why aren't authors being told to prove that characters 'deserve' to be able to travel through time, or transform themselves into creatures that don't exist, or hold the power of a nuclear bomb in their fingertips? Is immortality really so crazy and unreasonable compared to what's already out there...? Why are people with insane superpowers still considered 'human', but people who simply don't die (of natural causes...) considered something else entirely?

I could explain this viewpoint as a byproduct of how mortality is considered an essential part of the human experience...it would be interesting to examine, especially since a lot of people in the thread have basically said as much. ^^

But I'm more eager to point out that immortality is actually NOT impossible, from a biological viewpoint. The reason we can't be immortal (for now~) is literally just numbers...the DNA replication system can only go on for so long before its relatively tiny chance of making mistakes starts to add up. Eventually there are just too many errors (in addition to structural damage), and the body has to succumb to one of them. But if we could find a way to correct that with technology, immortality would actually be within reach.

And it is within reach for some creatures...like a certain jellyfish you may or may not have heard of~. When it gets too old, it literally reverts to the beginning of its life cycle, and could potentially do that indefinitely. If humans could do something similar (while keeping our consciousnesses intact, of course) then...well, y'know.

So yeah, compared to being able to fly like Superman or summon demonic familiars, immortality is actually fairly realistic. ^^;