When a protagonist does something morally questionable?

Heroes in fiction do morally questionable things all the time, and what makes one character a hero and another a villain can often depend on details like the circumstances, the scale, or just how the narrative frames it.

For example, Batman is a vigilante. That's illegal, and ethically questionable because he's placed himself above the law, and raises questions like "who does Batman answer to?". He violently assaults criminals without oversight, he does detective work without a warrant, he drives an unregistered vehicle through the streets without registration or insurance, he carries potentially deadly weapons... but the narrative usually frames Batman as a good guy, because in Batman stories, Batman is always framed as being a grim necessity in Gotham.

If your protagonist never does anything bad or even questionable that gets them into trouble, they often come across kind of passive, like they're just this cinnamon bun who just exists and the baddies just keep turning up and targeting them for some reason. This kind of protagonist can work if they keep being put into situations where choosing to take the moral high ground puts them into a harder, more troublesome situation (for example, the character who chooses not to let their boss do something illegal and gets fired for it, or the hero who refuses to kill a baddie having to face them again later). But often, if your character is out there in the world trying to do stuff... sooner or later they're going to end up in a position where they have to choose to do something morally or ethically wrong to achieve their goals, or they might end up succumbing to a personality flaw or a personal conflict. It's morally wrong to punch the bully who punches you every day (or at least, The Bible says so... You always have to consider that what's 'morally wrong' varies by culture and person!), but to a lot of the audience, it's going to feel totally justified, especially if reporting it to teachers hasn't stopped the bullying.

I actually quite like that, it makes characters feel more human. Everyone can be selfish from time to time.

I think it's a great choice, especially if it makes sense from their perspective. I hate it when people say that "this was a stupid decision" and "they're such an annoying bad character" for making bad decisions. Humans do that in real life! The only big tip I'd give you is to recognize this in some way, though. If a story has a character accidentally doom a town to death at the end of the story and it's looked over and nobody mentions it, then people might think you agree with the MC or something.

There’s nothing wrong with a hero who sometimes does morally iffy stuff as long as it’s like that on purpose and is acknowledged as bad in story

Oh hohhohohoh o

You will see my friend, I have great plans for this in my main novel. I love to crush the ideals of characters with the harsh reality of humanity. The Prison of Salvation short story should already be a preview of what's to come. Also, the Killer of Guiles.

Anyway, done with the Chuni stuff. I actually love this concept of having protagonists, or seemingly good people, do something, or be forced to do something morally questionable. It helps me break down a idealistic character and allow them to see and judge the world for themselves, creating questions in their mind about what Justice really is. It's a great tool for exploring many philosophical topics and scenarios.

Inferred Holocaust2?

Oh definitely, I'm scared too; I only aspire to be brave enough to be subtle :'D I personally feel less scared in the age of the internet though actually; in the old days, I might be physically stuck with the loud minority whereas these days I feel like I could be vindicated by the silent majority ... Maybe I'm being naive, but when information flows freer than ever, I feel like the truth will prevail :]

If done right, it makes for a very interesting story. Here's the thing, though: if you don't do it right, you can lose the reader because they stop caring what happens to the protagonist after they do this. Most of us cannot pull off creating a Dexter Morgan.

The key is to keep the character empathetic. The character must have good qualities that a reader can continue to engage with. Make the decision a hard choice for the character, and one that he wrestles with.

Once the action is taken, it is important to ensure that there are consequences for the character. Ensure that he has regrets, but also that what he did changes how the people around him act towards him. Having done this terrible thing, there should ideally be a redemption arc that the character has to work at.

It'll definitely make them interesting and more three-dimensional! There are no black and white choices in life, so by them having these internal struggles that lead them to taking questionable actions in the first place, it makes them human. I think what matters is the end goal, what are the results they expect from committing such actions? Will they regret it? What are their thoughts while doing said actions? Such things if done right can definitely add depth and layers to a character.

heroes are often imperfect and make mistakes

I feel like James Gunn does it well where he's actually weirdly optimistic with his approach. Like the dude is a comic nerd, so he's able to pull in both crowds which is fascinating. The Suicide Squad is the DCEU's... second(?) Most optimistic movie (just behind Shazam) where it's cruel yet it touches on the importance of life while leaning hard on the comic book stuff. His work is weird, brutal, and beautiful enough to remind me of Doom Patrol.

DC seems like they're heading towards their 80's territory in their film stuff and I'm all for it.

I didn't get that from the Boys which sucks because I heard people are into it. I've just read.... SO MANY... evil Superman stories and it sorta just ruined Homelander for me. For me tho, Shin Ultraman seemed like a refresher where it was just innocent and pure lol.

I will say I can't wait for the inevitable Superman vs. the Elite adaption which was like a response to the cynicism the character/genre's been getting. NO JOKE, villain is straight up a loudmouth British Punk dude with superpowers lmao.

image.png768x576 796 KB

Ah I can see that. Personally I don't read cape comics, literally the only ones I own are Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum and some Marvel Zombie comics. Same with cape movies, I've watched a hand full (Honestly lost interest around the time Disney bought out Marvel. I think Ironman 2 was the last cape movie I watched.), but they're all the same story on repeat to me. Seeing The Boys, and it's excessive violence and sex, was refreshing. I think it's kinda similar with most other people as well? Getting into the ALL THOSE cape comics can be pretty intimidating for the casual movie goer who didn't grow up with them, so they don't have that experience with all the evil superman comics. That may be why so many people like it, the show is something new to them.

I have to say, a loudmouth British punk with superpowers sounds entertaining, and the fact that he's crying in that scene you shared makes him more appealing.

Oh my God, you have NO IDEA. Manchester Black is so great lmao. I have the dumbest grin whenever he's on the screen. His team members are so great too.

Fun Fact: James Gunn was given the opportunity to direct a Man of Steel sequel, but chose The Suicide Squad instead. And the reason I bring this up because I know for a fact the dude would've adapted Manchester. I know for a fact that he's saving these guys.

He ain't going to make Superman swear or do excessive violence... or have excessive sex. So he's going to go all out on these guys instead lol. (He confirmed the Aquaman and the Green Arrow rumors were fake) (although I'm surprised he didn't reference Green Lantern dating an underaged girl).

It depends? It sounds quite interesting in your story. I do think characters like this are better suited to M-rated/R-rate/adult stories, as human beings like these aren't exactly the best role models for kiddos. I know a lot of people think you can't have an interesting/likeable boyscout type character these days, but I honestly think both types of characters can be really interesting, OR really poorly done. Like, as much as I liked the good seasons of Game of Thrones, even then I was sometimes thinking to myself it's unrealistic for every single character to be so awful except Sean Bean LOL. I can't blame the TV show that much for making changes to Tyrion's character to make him more likeable than he was in the books, frankly, because the audience needs someone to root for. XD

I think a good example of a boyscout character is Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap. He's still an interesting, likeable character who always does the right thing, but is occasionally tempted by evil things and is put through a lot of trials despite always doing the right thing. Sometimes, I guess I just want to watch a wholesome show where a guy helps fix up other people's lives. XD

I think a good example of a morally questionable character is Guts from Berserk. The dude has done some bad things, and it's just... really well explained in the story why he did them, but not OVERLY explained to the point where there's no mystery or intrigue to his actions. The audience is meant to ponder them and keep thinking about them, and that's the brilliance of that character. The audience also automatically feels compassion for him since he has endured so much pain. I feel like if Guts didn't live in such a terrible world, he could truly be the good man he was meant to be, but he's kind of dragged into the gutter with he rest of the world because everyone else is so awful. XD

So, I guess the lesson is to make your characters understandable. Although, I do occasionally enjoy a villain who is evil for the sake of being evil, too. XD It always just depends on how it's done.