Unanimous Good

[NichG]

I guess I get it? Your requirements certainly are more likely to produce the "tragic hero", especially in a world of unknowns (like "will I get caught cheating at video games to save the world?" (yes, that's a real plot point, albeit one nobody asked - they just did get caught cheating at video games to save the world)).

Interesting that "heroic" is arguably more compatible with "evil necromancer" than with "gaming group".

Kind of the opposite of 'tragic hero' though, or at least excluding it. If a character's way of doing things generally produces the worse outcome, that disqualifies them to me. So a character who has some moral code or set of values but ends up being destroyed by them is exactly the sort of traditional hero that my own aesthetic excludes.

Cheating at the game is heroic to me if and only if on the balance and in that setting and fiction it would save the villagers/frees people from awful arranged marriages/ends the tyranny of death/what have you more than that same character playing fair. If you're playing against the God of Games and cheating is going to ping his domain and you cheat, that's not 'putting the lives of others over your own sense of fair play', that's just making a dumb mistake.

[MetroAlien]

I'm glad the discussion moved away from military analysis...
I dare say none of us are military experts, and even if we were, war is a messy enough business that even experts' opinions should be taken with several grains of salt.

On the topic of alignments in D&D, I often find myself the minority, but my preferred way of dealing with alignments basically boils down to:
"if you can justify/explain it, it flies"

A paladin wants to spare the bandits?
Give me a solid argument why they think it's an LG thing to do, and we're cheesy.
A CN rogue wants to adopt an orphan?
maybe they plan to teach them the rogue ways and unleash another CN into the world. It works for me.

---
I have to say, I'm seeing both sides of the argument here, but also many of the examples seem contrived?
I get it, that's kinda the point of making it an example... My point isn't to invalidate any arguments. Like I said, I see both sides.
But that I'd find it really annoying to see such examples in a story I'm engaged in.

I'm sorry for picking on this point in particular, but the idea of "killing the villain when you have the chance" put the funniest image in my mind,
of the heroes randomly noticing the Big Bad reading a newspaper in a street corner café in a mediterranean town, and deciding to drive-by assassinate him before they are discovered -> freeze frame of heroes on a moped -> credits roll to alt-rock music
Arguably, it's a "moral" thing to do, idk...?
But to me it seems more like a casual act of terrorism, which society taught me to hate. I will readily admit that this is a taught/acquired value.

Very few writers have both the literary skill and philosophical subtlety to present a contrived situation as a genuine exploration of morality.
More often than not it just comes off as either preachy ("haha! my way is the right way!"), or masturbatory ("look at the crazy situation I thought up!")

I've recently read a critic argue that Obi-Wan should have slit Anakin's throat after their duel in Revenge of the Sith.
I guess, yeah, technically speaking that might have saved some lives further down the line. (*)
But
A) Anakin was as good as dead as far as OBi-Wan knew in the moment
B) I feel it goes against Obi-Wan's character and established relationship with Anakin
C) it would completely destroy the mood of the scene in a comically bad way
D) it just sort of seems super-petty on a human level, both with and without context?
E) Obi-Wan does take responsibility for this, committing himself to a life of regret and penance


---
(*) arguably not, the emperor is still alive. Who knows? That's beside the point anyway...

[NichG]

I have to say, I'm seeing both sides of the argument here, but also many of the examples seem contrived?
I get it, that's kinda the point of making it an example... My point isn't to invalidate any arguments. Like I said, I see both sides.
But that I'd find it really annoying to see such examples in a story I'm engaged in.

I'm sorry for picking on this point in particular, but the idea of "killing the villain when you have the chance" put the funniest image in my mind,
of the heroes randomly noticing the Big Bad reading a newspaper in a street corner café in a mediterranean town, and deciding to drive-by assassinate him before they are discovered -> freeze frame of heroes on a moped -> credits roll to alt-rock music
Arguably, it's a "moral" thing to do, idk...?
But to me it seems more like a casual act of terrorism, which society taught me to hate. I will readily admit that this is a taught/acquired value.

If the villain is Biff Tannen from Back to the Future, sure, that's beyond the pale. If it's, say, Lung from Worm and its well established that engaging him in a straight up fight creates tons of collateral damage and he just sponsored the installation of bombs in hospitals and schools and power infrastructure as a threat to get him out of custody, then yeah, someone sniping him while he's sipping coffee and not giving him a chance to power up and not giving his gang a chance to take the city hostage to get him back reads as heroic to me. Much more heroic than engaging him in a straight up fight (producing even more collateral damage...), giving him back to the authorities who have proven to be unable to hold him for even two weeks, etc. Or Bellatrix Lestrange from HP (would go Voldemort except 'it wouldn't work'). Or Thanos. Or ...

Very few writers have both the literary skill and philosophical subtlety to present a contrived situation as a genuine exploration of morality.
More often than not it just comes off as either preachy ("haha! my way is the right way!"), or masturbatory ("look at the crazy situation I thought up!")

I've recently read a critic argue that Obi-Wan should have slit Anakin's throat after their duel in Revenge of the Sith.
I guess, yeah, technically speaking that might have saved some lives further down the line. (*)
But
A) Anakin was as good as dead as far as OBi-Wan knew in the moment
B) I feel it goes against Obi-Wan's character and established relationship with Anakin
C) it would completely destroy the mood of the scene in a comically bad way
D) it just sort of seems super-petty on a human level, both with and without context?
E) Obi-Wan does take responsibility for this, committing himself to a life of regret and penance


---
(*) arguably not, the emperor is still alive. Who knows? That's beside the point anyway...

Basically everything but (E) and maybe (A) is fine for a 'character', even a 'moral character', but to me it makes that character not a hero. (C) is a meta thing and its on the author.

[gbaji]

I think the lesson here is that "hero" != "good".

You can be good, but not a hero. Heck. Most people fall into the category, right? And you can be a hero, in the sense that you are saving the day, fighting the big bad, preventing some horrible thing, but that does not necessarily make you "good" at all.

I think the trap some fall into is that assuming that if they are doing heroic things (or are just the "hero/protagnoist" in a story), that this means that they must be good. And that is usually followed with some very tortured attempts to rationalize actions as "good" based on some "greater good" sort of argument. I don't agree with that. You can absolutely do things "for the greater good". And those things may very well be "heroic". That does not mean that the acts themselves were "good". In fact, I'd argue that most of the time, when someone is using a "greater good" and/or "ends justify the means" argument, they are actually doing something "evil", but that said evil is necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Nothing wrong with that analysis, IMO. Except if you start mistaking those act themselves as "good" (again, IMO).

I also think that some of this line of thinking comes from a desire to see our heroes and their actions as "good". We become uncomfortable when we veer into the territory of "evil, but necessary". And honestly? That's not a bad thing. But, if we're actually doing an analysis of what makes things "good" and what make them "evil", we really do need to be more honest than that.

[Witty Username]

Would being attacked qualify as exceptional circumstances? While doing questionable things while defending oneself is definitely possible, it feels like defensive warfare itself would be pretty non-indicative of alignment.

Not necessarily, take for example the adventuring party stealing into a bandit camp, generally, while the adventuring party is the aggresor to the bandits, but the bandits would still not have the moral high ground. What one is defending, and why one is defending it are factors in its justification.

[NichG]

I think the lesson here is that "hero" != "good".

You can be good, but not a hero. Heck. Most people fall into the category, right? And you can be a hero, in the sense that you are saving the day, fighting the big bad, preventing some horrible thing, but that does not necessarily make you "good" at all.

I think the trap some fall into is that assuming that if they are doing heroic things (or are just the "hero/protagnoist" in a story), that this means that they must be good. And that is usually followed with some very tortured attempts to rationalize actions as "good" based on some "greater good" sort of argument. I don't agree with that. You can absolutely do things "for the greater good". And those things may very well be "heroic". That does not mean that the acts themselves were "good". In fact, I'd argue that most of the time, when someone is using a "greater good" and/or "ends justify the means" argument, they are actually doing something "evil", but that said evil is necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Nothing wrong with that analysis, IMO. Except if you start mistaking those act themselves as "good" (again, IMO).

I also think that some of this line of thinking comes from a desire to see our heroes and their actions as "good". We become uncomfortable when we veer into the territory of "evil, but necessary". And honestly? That's not a bad thing. But, if we're actually doing an analysis of what makes things "good" and what make them "evil", we really do need to be more honest than that.

Yes: heroic, protagonistic, moral, ethical, good, and Good all mean different things. Not to mention that each of them also mean different things to different people. And 'reading as X' is also distinct from 'being X', because the context of existing with purpose in fiction actually does matter. Something totally out of a character's control can change their fictional role and how they seem to be.

[Pauly]

I'm
I'm sorry for picking on this point in particular, but the idea of "killing the villain when you have the chance" put the funniest image in my mind,
of the heroes randomly noticing the Big Bad reading a newspaper in a street corner café in a mediterranean town, and deciding to drive-by assassinate him before they are discovered -> freeze frame of heroes on a moped -> credits roll to alt-rock music

After the credits roll for 10 seconds it cuts back.

Next scene:
You are all in a windowless room. Handcuffed and wearing prison fatigues. The door opens, in walks a tired man in a badly crumpled suit. He introduces himself as the public defender assigned to your case.
“The best deal the DA will offer is murder 2, which means life without parole. If you fight it you’re facing murder 1 and the chair. It’s a very generous offer”.

[icefractal]

And we see why typical PCs almost always resist arrest.

Still though, I don't think getting in legal trouble for something changes whether it's heroic. Could be seen as more heroic, in fact, to do it despite the consequences to yourself. Of course that's assuming that what you're doing is a good thing.

[False God]

And we see why typical PCs almost always resist arrest.

Still though, I don't think getting in legal trouble for something changes whether it's heroic. Could be seen as more heroic, in fact, to do it despite the consequences to yourself. Of course that's assuming that what you're doing is a good thing.

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

[Satinavian]

And we see why typical PCs almost always resist arrest.

Honestly, i rarely see this. And i remember quite a number of modules that blew up because the PCs didn't resist, when the writers expected them to.

[MoiMagnus]

If you're playing against the God of Games and cheating is going to ping his domain and you cheat, that's not 'putting the lives of others over your own sense of fair play', that's just making a dumb mistake.

The "funny" thing is that in a lot of stories, this is de facto the case. "Fate" or however you name it will reward honesty and fair-play of the protagonist with victories (possibly through deus ex machina), and punishes the "good guys" cheating with bad luck.

And while you could put that under the umbrella of author's intervention (or a GM's intervention, if that's a RPG), when the whole world was build around this ideology, it's pretty much equivalent to having a in-universe god of honesty/fairplay/mercy/etc.

[Batcathat]

The "funny" thing is that in a lot of stories, this is de facto the case. "Fate" or however you name it will reward honesty and fair-play of the protagonist with victories (possibly through deus ex machina), and punishes the "good guys" cheating with bad luck.

And while you could put that under the umbrella of author's intervention (or a GM's intervention, if that's a RPG), when the whole world was build around this ideology, it's pretty much equivalent to having a in-universe god of honesty/fairplay/mercy/etc.

For the longest time, I thought I disliked the sort of goody two-shoes, honor before reason type of hero that always insist on doing what's Right rather than what's smart. But eventually I realized that the above was what I actually hated (at least the version where there's no god or other in-universe actor but simply the author themselves doing it), where the universe itself seem to bend over backwards to ensure the "heroic" choice is always the correct one.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm glad the discussion moved away from military analysis...
I dare say none of us are military experts

Actually, I am and have both the advanced degrees and the practical experience to prove it, but I am also (1) at this point well out of date, (2) very strong in some areas and not so strong in others, and (3) keenly aware of the areas where I am far less expert ...(field craft for an A-Team for example, or the nuances of how to get the right gun tracking solution air to air if the missiles go FUBAR...) than some others. And a lot of what I can address can't be addressed due to both forum rules and the amount of time and space required. We are better off leaving it at the enthusiasts level in this discussion forum.

[NichG]

The "funny" thing is that in a lot of stories, this is de facto the case. "Fate" or however you name it will reward honesty and fair-play of the protagonist with victories (possibly through deus ex machina), and punishes the "good guys" cheating with bad luck.

And while you could put that under the umbrella of author's intervention (or a GM's intervention, if that's a RPG), when the whole world was build around this ideology, it's pretty much equivalent to having a in-universe god of honesty/fairplay/mercy/etc.

For authored fiction this can be a really fine line to walk. Everything in authored fiction is just what the author decides, but part of the art of it is how the author plausibly assigns causality. If the author's intentions bleed through too much, the result reads as preachy - as the author pushing their world view on the readers as 'you just have to accept this'. If the author sets things up such that that world view ends up making sense based on the confluence of things they've established about the world, it pushes that problem back to an analysis of why those prior causes happen to be there, and so on.

It's possible to make a version of Gotham in which Bat Man's mercy is wise rather than foolish, because every vigilante who does kill gets hit by falling scenery and even when people escape Arkham Bat Man always finds out and stops them just before they manage to actually cause any harm. In such a world, Bat Man could read as heroic, but it'd be pretty obvious that the author (or maybe the comic code...) is forcing the issue. For me that doesn't necessarily make the character read as unheroic, but I'd become uninterested in the world and the story because I wouldn't feel the author has actually earned the right (or maybe 'has lost the right') to be asserting they're trying to say to me - I guess I'd call it something like a 'hostile author' feeling.

The author could try to ground these things in causal factors, like literally there is an omnipotent superhero who is enforcing this morality but not actually saving anyone themselves - strictly existing to punish heroes for being unheroic and to arrange events so that heroic heroes get there in the nick of time. But without careful consideration, that can ground discontent or feelings of arbitrariness in that added factor. One danger here is, heroes accepting these elements as 'unchangeable, just so' things even when they have consequences for people can slip to reading unheroic. The Wall of the Faithless and Kelemvor in Forgotten Realms get this reaction from a lot of people. It's clear you're 'supposed' to think of them a certain way, and that is so disjoint with what they are that both falls back on the authors again as being unearned authorial fiat, and it makes entities like Good-aligned deities complicit in atrocities.

On the other hand, if an author created a version of Gotham where they actually had good enough security in their jails and asylums that people didn't get broken out or escape readily, where Arkham was presented more as an actual place of healing and had staff who studied supernatural forms of mental influences as well as power-assisted psychiatry and psychology and actually managed to successfully treat a high proportion of those who were sent there (walking a very fine line with brainwashing, mind you), and those people who were successfully treated ended up becoming allies and fellow heroes upon release? They'd probably still get fan base arguing about whether it's realistic for the setting to include something with such a good track record of reforming people and talk about free will and A Clockwork Orange and so on, but it'd be much closer to a unified view of both the philosophy and the infrastructure necessary to support that philosophy. And the more work the author does to actually ground those factors, the more worth reading it becomes.

[MetroAlien]

if we define "hero" as "speaker of words and doer of deeds", then "heroic" indeed doesn't mean the same as "good".

I find such usage confusing, because it overlaps too much with the term "protagonist" and confuses the notion of "anti-hero".
(i.e. is an anti-hero a lazy slob who never speaks??)

When discussing literature, I usually use the word "hero" to mean a character who can act as a "moral compass" of sorts and is worthy of emulation.
The "villain" then becomes somebody with despicable morals and worthy of opposition.
Usually the hero and villain stand in opposition.
This leads to the definition of "anti-hero" as somebody who opposes the villain, but unlike the "hero" isn't worthy of emulation.
(EDIT: to me, the idea of an "anti-hero" without a villain to oppose doesn't really make sense, because in that case, they can often just be described as the villain themselves)

For example Hamlet can, depending on the critic, be a flawed "hero" or an "anti-hero" (too flawed for emulation).
(and some postmodernists even call him an irredeemable "villain")
Hamlet is always the protagonist and a "doer of deeds", but using the definition above, we can differentiate what kind.

Thus, the "protagonist" of a story can either be a "hero", an "anti-hero", a villain, or simply a bystander.

[NichG]

if we define "hero" as "speaker of words and doer of deeds", then "heroic" indeed doesn't mean the same as "good".

I find such usage confusing, because it overlaps too much with the term "protagonist" and confuses the notion of "anti-hero".
(i.e. is an anti-hero a lazy slob who never speaks??)

When discussing literature, I usually use the word "hero" to mean a character who can act as a "moral compass" of sorts and is worthy of emulation.
The "villain" then becomes somebody with despicable morals and worthy of opposition.
Usually the hero and villain stand in opposition.
This leads to the definition of "anti-hero" as somebody who opposes the villain, but unlike the "hero" isn't worthy of emulation.
(EDIT: to me, the idea of an "anti-hero" without a villain to oppose doesn't really make sense, because in that case, they can often just be described as the villain themselves)

For example Hamlet can, depending on the critic, be a flawed "hero" or an "anti-hero" (too flawed for emulation).
(and some postmodernists even call him an irredeemable "villain")
Hamlet is always the protagonist and a "doer of deeds", but using the definition above, we can differentiate what kind.

Thus, the "protagonist" of a story can either be a "hero", an "anti-hero", a villain, or simply a bystander.

That's not all that far from the sense in which I'm using hero, except I'd remove the explicit reference to a moral compass and instead say that: A hero is a character who does something thought impossible or impractical and shows that it can work or be better than how things otherwise are, and inspires others to attempt to follow that path as well. An anti-hero is a character who does something thought impossible and impractical which happens to make the world better (e.g. via opposing a villain, but it could be other things too), but is such that others being inspired to follow in their path would instead lead to the world being worse.

So a character who stands for a particular moral viewpoint but does not actually manage to successfully demonstrate that that moral viewpoint actually leads to a better world doesn't qualify for me. They're not an anti-hero, they're just... a failure, basically. If the moral view was actually worth following but the character's expression of that moral view leads to harm and a worse world, they're sort of doing the opposite of showing it to be worthy of emulation. It becomes a very different message to me.

I suppose the fundamental difference is, I'm not starting with a fixed morality and looking for characters who exhibit that particular fixed morality. I'm instead looking for characters who show novel ways of life, and their successes and the outcomes they achieve are part of an argument for that way of life or at least showing possibilities one might not have otherwise imagined.

[MetroAlien]

That's not all that far from the sense in which I'm using hero, except I'd remove the explicit reference to a moral compass and instead say that: A hero is a character who does something thought impossible or impractical and shows that it can work or be better than how things otherwise are, and inspires others to attempt to follow that path as well. An anti-hero is a character who does something thought impossible and impractical which happens to make the world better (e.g. via opposing a villain, but it could be other things too), but is such that others being inspired to follow in their path would instead lead to the world being worse.

Maybe I'm interpreting way more philosophical pragmatism than you intend to convey, but I find it fascinating to apply this method...
There would be a solid case for Hamlet being a straight hero, because as a result of his actions Denmark is rid of many corrupt figures (and he prevents a war by giving his crown away with his last words).
The case for Hamlet being an anti-hero would need to argue that maybe the average person isn't as good a duelist and may die to Laertes? Even then it's not very clear what the negative consequences are.

For those unfamiliar with Hamlet, the "orthodox" case for "anti-hero" argues that his personal motivations for killing people aren't satisfactory, although he happens to kill the "correct" people by chance (some of the time).
Obviously, a "pragmatist" approach categorically counts this line of thinking as invalid.

Another difficulty comes from the fact that Hamlet's worldview isn't easy to define.
The entire point of the play is that he grows from a procrastinator into a go-getter.
Arguably, his worldview changes from that of procrastination to that of justified vengeance.
But also arguably, his view was always that of "vengeance", he merely lacked the personal capacity to live it out... That would mean he transformed from a "failure" to a "hero" along the way.

[NichG]

Maybe I'm interpreting way more philosophical pragmatism than you intend to convey, but I find it fascinating to apply this method...
There would be a solid case for Hamlet being a straight hero, because as a result of his actions Denmark is rid of many corrupt figures (and he prevents a war by giving his crown away with his last words).
The case for Hamlet being an anti-hero would need to argue that maybe the average person isn't as good a duelist and may die to Laertes? Even then it's not very clear what the negative consequences are.

For those unfamiliar with Hamlet, the "orthodox" case for "anti-hero" argues that his personal motivations for killing people aren't satisfactory, although he happens to kill the "correct" people by chance (some of the time).
Obviously, a "pragmatist" approach categorically counts this line of thinking as invalid.

Another difficulty comes from the fact that Hamlet's worldview isn't easy to define.
The entire point of the play is that he grows from a procrastinator into a go-getter.
Arguably, his worldview changes from that of procrastination to that of justified vengeance.
But also arguably, his view was always that of "vengeance", he merely lacked the personal capacity to live it out... That would mean he transformed from a "failure" to a "hero" along the way.

Growth is fine - its kind of one of the hallmarks of the hero's journey that they don't necessarily start with whatever insight or state of being that lets them find the impossible path, but that they bring it back from their trials and experiences. Not saying that a traditional 'hero's journey' is mandatory or anything, but there's a reason that pattern can often work.

I think you do have to pin down the worldview Hamlet is representing to make the hero/anti-hero division. Is it vengeance? Is it about not allowing injustices to lie? And you also have to make a (personal) judgment about what kind of world is best to live in. If Hamlet's worldview is vengeance even to the harm of others, maybe you don't want to live in a world where you might be subject to vengeance even if in the case of Hamlet you think his actions ended up making the world better - in which case, he will probably read as anti-hero or just protagonist. If you read it to be more about injustice, then the extrapolation of 'what if other people behaved the same?' might not seem so bad.

I guess for me, one potential issue with Hamlet as a hero is that so many of the impactful actions, the deaths, etc occur not according to intent but as the usual Shakespearean lethal misunderstanding trope. That doesn't speak of following a path with intention, but rather sort of being driven and out of control and ending up with things as they turn out.

[MetroAlien]

I guess for me, one potential issue with Hamlet as a hero is that so many of the impactful actions, the deaths, etc occur not according to intent but as the usual Shakespearean lethal misunderstanding trope. That doesn't speak of following a path with intention, but rather sort of being driven and out of control and ending up with things as they turn out.

It was always my reading that the "lethal misunderstanding" is the dramatist's way to represent karma/divine justice/etc...
The people who die find their fate because of a "dramatic flaw". Now, death may be an exaggerated outcome for some of the flaws, but that's the nature of, well, "drama" for you.
"Realism" isn't a goal of the story, nor even directly desired, rather it's just a vehicle for communicating efficiently.
If realistic outcomes "compromise" (in the writer's view) the story's (moral) message, they take a back seat in favour of "dramatic justice", as delivered by death.

Basically, I'm saying that Shakespeare is signalling us with "don't be this guy, or you'll end up ded (figuratively speaking)", which is a value statement about morals.

But arguing about Shakespeare specifically is getting into way different territory, imho, so I won't press the issue any further.

[NichG]

It was always my reading that the "lethal misunderstanding" is the dramatist's way to represent karma/divine justice/etc...
The people who die find their fate because of a "dramatic flaw". Now, death may be an exaggerated outcome for some of the flaws, but that's the nature of, well, "drama" for you.
"Realism" isn't a goal of the story, nor even directly desired, rather it's just a vehicle for communicating efficiently.
If realistic outcomes "compromise" (in the writer's view) the story's (moral) message, they take a back seat in favour of "dramatic justice", as delivered by death.

Basically, I'm saying that Shakespeare is signalling us with "don't be this guy, or you'll end up ded (figuratively speaking)", which is a value statement about morals.

Well, as I said upthread, this kind of approach doesn't really work for me in particular because the author is tipping their hand that things happen in order to justify their worldview, which I take as a sort of hostile or bad faith stance at least with regard to the message they want to convey. Historically, certainly that method worked for people (and no doubt even today, there are people that approach works for), but for me at least it undermines the role of the story as presenting an argument that it has to defend or justify.

So its not even that realism has to be the goal, but making something that plausibly stands on its own and feels at least self-consistent and natural gives more weight to whatever message or ideas the story is trying to explore.

[False God]

Well, as I said upthread, this kind of approach doesn't really work for me in particular because the author is tipping their hand that things happen in order to justify their worldview, which I take as a sort of hostile or bad faith stance at least with regard to the message they want to convey. Historically, certainly that method worked for people (and no doubt even today, there are people that approach works for), but for me at least it undermines the role of the story as presenting an argument that it has to defend or justify.

So its not even that realism has to be the goal, but making something that plausibly stands on its own and feels at least self-consistent and natural gives more weight to whatever message or ideas the story is trying to explore.

I think functionally a lot of people who write stories forget that the basic function of storytelling is to present a message. To teach a lesson using (potentially) fictional characters and show how their actions led to their consequences. It doesn't need to be preachy or modern or even a complex message, heck it doesn't necessarily need to be a positive message. But the message you want to tell, be it something simple like "Don't lie and hide things from your friends."(seems to be a common one these days) or something more complex and subtle underpins the story.

Without it you may have entertainment, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "story".

[MoiMagnus]

I think functionally a lot of people who write stories forget that the basic function of storytelling is to present a message. To teach a lesson using (potentially) fictional characters and show how their actions led to their consequences. It doesn't need to be preachy or modern or even a complex message, heck it doesn't necessarily need to be a positive message. But the message you want to tell, be it something simple like "Don't lie and hide things from your friends."(seems to be a common one these days) or something more complex and subtle underpins the story.

True, but even with that objective in mind, twisting the universe to ensure that your message is correct in-universe due to "fate" or "luck" (rather than exploring the consequences of why honesty can actually help in the long run despite the cost at short term) might not be the best way to teach that lesson, as the immediate answer of your public might be "Well, sure, it's fiction so it can work, but there is no way reality works like that."

Unless the message you're trying to convey is that such fate/karma/etc actually exists IRL, in which case I guess it's fair to have it in your fiction (Tolkien's LotR was significantly influenced by its author's belief about the real world), but it'd better be a conscious decision (and even then Tolkien tried his best at explaining why acts of mercy can lead to victory, that's the whole Gollum act, it's not like someone unrelated to the act of mercy jumped out of nowhere to save the day).

[Batcathat]

True, but even with that objective in mind, twisting the universe to ensure that your message is correct in-universe due to "fate" or "luck" (rather than exploring the consequences of why honesty can actually help in the long run despite the cost at short term) might not be the best way to teach that lesson, as the immediate answer of your public might be "Well, sure, it's fiction so it can work, but there is no way reality works like that."

Unless the message you're trying to convey is that such fate/karma/etc actually exists IRL, in which case I guess it's fair to have it in your fiction (Tolkien's LotR was significantly influenced by its author's belief about the real world), but it'd better be a conscious decision (and even then Tolkien tried his best at explaining why acts of mercy can lead to victory, that's the whole Gollum act, it's not like someone unrelated to the act of mercy jumped out of nowhere to save the day).

Yeah, this. Somehow something along the lines of "Don't murder people (because you will die from seemingly unrelated circumstances)" doesn't seem like a great message to send.

Also, the lesson of roughly 98 percent of all fictional heroes (possibly a slight exaggeration) is basically "Follow your heart and everything will work out" which is horrible advice a lot of the time.

[False God]

True, but even with that objective in mind, twisting the universe to ensure that your message is correct in-universe due to "fate" or "luck" (rather than exploring the consequences of why honesty can actually help in the long run despite the cost at short term) might not be the best way to teach that lesson, as the immediate answer of your public might be "Well, sure, it's fiction so it can work, but there is no way reality works like that."

Unless the message you're trying to convey is that such fate/karma/etc actually exists IRL, in which case I guess it's fair to have it in your fiction (Tolkien's LotR was significantly influenced by its author's belief about the real world), but it'd better be a conscious decision (and even then Tolkien tried his best at explaining why acts of mercy can lead to victory, that's the whole Gollum act, it's not like someone unrelated to the act of mercy jumped out of nowhere to save the day).

I think "fate/karma/divine justice" are all fine messages, provided that the story communicates it clearly. If the Hero defeats the Villain, but refuses to kill them, and then the Villain's Evil Device explodes and kills the Villain, that's a fine "Do bad things, and bad things will happen to you." message. The "karmic retribution" of the situation must be closely tied to the actions taken.

If the comeuppance feels irrational, unrelated, or LOLRANDOM! then it doesn't convey the message of "Do bad things, and bad things will happen to you."

The whole Gollum thing is fine, people are nice to him, he starts to turn around. Sam is mean to him, he starts to regress. At the end of the day when given a sort of "last chance" to help or hinder Frodo in dealing with the Ring, he fails and goes for the Ring which ultimately leads to his death. The actions people take are directly related to the consequences they suffer. There is a fairly clear "A leads to B" here.

It's not about philosophizing on if karma does or doesn't exist IRL, it's about showing a clear sequence of events leading to the ultimate resolution. John Wick does this well too. Unnecessary cruelty is repaid with excessive violence. But these actions are undertaken by the person affected, as opposed to say, Iosef getting hit by Truck-Kun while driving away from John's apartment.

If people walk away from a story and say "That could never happen IRL!" then that's either:
An indictment of the story failing to present a believable message. (the consequence was unrelated, absurd or implausible)
OR it's an indictment of reality that things IRL do not function as they should. (Ie: bad people doing bad things don't get bad consequences)
To make things more muddled, both could be true.

[NichG]

I think "fate/karma/divine justice" are all fine messages, provided that the story communicates it clearly. If the Hero defeats the Villain, but refuses to kill them, and then the Villain's Evil Device explodes and kills the Villain, that's a fine "Do bad things, and bad things will happen to you." message. The "karmic retribution" of the situation must be closely tied to the actions taken.

Whether or not an author wants to present a message, whether or not somehow 'communicating a message' is part of the definition of a story, that doesn't in itself obligate the reader to agree or care.

'Don't do this thing because I say so' is a bad argument for persuading anyone willing to be the least bit critical. Divine justice is clearly authorial fiat and amounts to the same thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think functionally a lot of people who write stories forget that the basic function of storytelling is to present a message.

What, every story is a fable?

Without it you may have entertainment, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "story".

Yes, it's a story. Not every story needs to be a fable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What, every story is a fable?
Yes, it's a story. Not every story needs to be a fable.

Yeah. Story is just narrative. The idea that everything needs a message is...shudders...yeah. No thanks. I find that when authors put messages into works they are inevitably worse stories (even if they're better allegories or preaching works) than they'd be otherwise. Stories can (and usually should be) explorations of "what if". What follows from this set of events and characters?

[Batcathat]

Yeah. Story is just narrative. The idea that everything needs a message is...shudders...yeah. No thanks. I find that when authors put messages into works they are inevitably worse stories (even if they're better allegories or preaching works) than they'd be otherwise. Stories can (and usually should be) explorations of "what if". What follows from this set of events and characters?

I don't think it's necessarily worse, if it's done well. "I want to write a story that shows why stealing is wrong" can lead to an equally good story as "what if Bob the burglar got caught in the act" or whatever, assuming they find a story that fits their intended message, rather than forces it onto a story where it doesn't fit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think it's necessarily worse, if it's done well. "I want to write a story that shows why stealing is wrong" can lead to an equally good story as "what if Bob the burglar got caught in the act" or whatever, assuming they find a story that fits their intended message, rather than forces it onto a story where it doesn't fit.

I don't know if it's necessarily worse, merely that I've never found one that wasn't worse. So my priors are very firmly fixed against it.

I'm fine if messages can be derived from the work, or even if the author's own biases/worldview comes through a bit. That's pretty much inevitable. But trying to preach a clear message in a work of fiction ends up fighting the story. Because real (or real-seeming) worlds just don't have those clear messages. There's always loose ends, things that don't "fit the message", etc. So you either muddy your message or you start imposing artificial constraints on the story. And yes, this applies even where I agree with the message. For example, I think the Narnia books got worse (as worldbuilding/fiction) as the allegorical parts got stronger. That's despite being good allegories and me being a very firm Christian. Similarly, the Sword of Truth novels got less and less interesting the more the author's Objectivism got shoehorned in (I'm much less a fan of that message, however). Etc.

I'm fine with selecting characters and events that you hope will send a message...as long as they're allowed to develop according to narrative constraints, not external ideological constraints.

And to say that all stories need messages inserted into them to be called so...yeah, I disagree fundamentally with that.

[Batcathat]

I don't know if it's necessarily worse, merely that I've never found one that wasn't worse. So my priors are very firmly fixed against it.

I'm fine if messages can be derived from the work, or even if the author's own biases/worldview comes through a bit. That's pretty much inevitable. But trying to preach a clear message in a work of fiction ends up fighting the story. Because real (or real-seeming) worlds just don't have those clear messages. There's always loose ends, things that don't "fit the message", etc. So you either muddy your message or you start imposing artificial constraints on the story. And yes, this applies even where I agree with the message. For example, I think the Narnia books got worse (as worldbuilding/fiction) as the allegorical parts got stronger. That's despite being good allegories and me being a very firm Christian. Similarly, the Sword of Truth novels got less and less interesting the more the author's Objectivism got shoehorned in (I'm much less a fan of that message, however). Etc.

I'm fine with selecting characters and events that you hope will send a message...as long as they're allowed to develop according to narrative constraints, not external ideological constraints.

And to say that all stories need messages inserted into them to be called so...yeah, I disagree fundamentally with that.

I suspect it part of the issue is that it's really noticeable when done poorly and when done right it just seems like a natural part of the story. But I do agree there are plenty of very bad examples of it, so it's certainly not something I would recommend an author doing.

It might also be kind of a chicken or egg situation in some cases, where the author had a clear message in mind but only told it by picking the right premise and characters.