![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseGlancing over ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
bad_rpers_suck in an attempt at cohesive procrastination today I came upon this post about problems in an RP where just about everybody was joining up with the bad guys rather than picking the other side. The question there posed being mostly; why?
Which made me wonder because when I look over the characters I choose to write about both in discussion and in fic format they’re at least of dubious morality and at worse; hell-bent on total world destruction. Not that the destruction of humanity would be a bad thing, mind. Especially considering what we’ve managed to do to the planet. By which I mean that on that account at least; my viewpoint is somewhat biased since I really do believe that the absolute destruction of humanity would be a fine thing for the ecosystem. Though, and here my inherent hypocrisy becomes apparent; I’m not actually going to ever do anything about it. I like my decadent, corrupt little slice of European pie thank you very much. And my mythic island off the cost of mainland European can stay just the way it is so that I can enjoy it. Call it a touch of Byzantine sensibility if you like but there’s just something very easily complacent about knowing that things are perfectly rotten, accepting it and just doing little things to improve it in increments here and there. I’ve been talking about Greece recently so that’s not actually intended as a Trinity Blood reference btw. There is just something so very placid about just accepting that things will only change in increments in day to day life which is probably half the reason why nobody is busy RPing heroes. Because it’s just too different, too unfamiliar.
Often enough the hero of any given series has his own reasons, good reasons at that, for rushing off and saving the world but sometimes precisely because those reasons get fleshed out just a little too much the viewer gets bored with exploring said reasons hence the urge to RP the other chap who’s only a minor character instead. To use Trinity Blood as an example; Abel might be a good character to RP since he does have more than the obvious cover personality going on there but someone like Hugue might be rather conventionally dull. Because while Abel’s dark past is his own damn fault; Hugue’s misfortune exonerates him and makes him just your stock hero out on a mission to save his sister and restore his family honour. Then again, played correctly Hugue’s obsession with his sister could well prove that even the stock character of the wandering samurai does have some rather bizarre flaws.
The problem then is more that the storyline in most cases is carried by the heroes and their actions so unless you’re looking at an anti-hero archetype like Morecock’s Elric; the point would be for the hero to be shown in the best light. Nobody, usually, wants the story to consist of a hero who’s only a hero because the villain is a little bit worse. That would make a good plotline too really where the choice isn’t between good and evil but rather between the lesser of two evils. Falling back on Trinity Blood again if the choice were between Süleyman or Seth, you might get into trouble because while one is arguably crazy the other one seems to be a little girl playing at fairytales so which of them would really be worse?
All of which really answers the question in most respects. Since the ‘good’ characters can be just as multi-faceted as their opposition. So there really isn’t much of an excuse via that argument unless it’s really broken down into increments and the point, that I’m sure somebody made in a comment to that post, is really a matter of payoff.
The bad guys usually tend to wield a fair bit of power and via corrupt means tend to get what they want far sooner than the good guys who are relatively careful of following the rules. Though oddly enough that doesn’t at all have to be the case. James Bond is arguably a good guy and yet he murders people, blows things up on a regular basis, obviously engages in sexual relations entirely for the sex alone etc. All of which might usually be termed bad guy traits. Bond uses people, manipulates them continually, sometimes murders them too and a whole host of other things while still doing it for the cause. He’s not really what you’d call an anti-hero at all but his methods do deviate an awful lot from what would be described as Lawful Good.
Quick payoff and excess flaws don’t then have to be villainous traits at all which does then beg the question of why the villains might still be judged to be more appealing. That probably varies easily enough from person to person, ranging from things like being able to play a character entirely contrary to your own self or a character who gets to act out all those vicious little urges that people curtail in everyday life and so on. But in my case I suspect that the key appeal of the villain comes in the form of that tragic romanticism that means they’re never going to win. Raistlin’s never really going to become a god, Beruze is never really going to manage to destroy the entire aristocratic system and Seishrio has to die to win. Romantic tragic heroism then is my particular vice when it comes to picking favourites. Because they’re never going to win no matter how warped or honourable their cause. The revolution will never come but they still keep fighting for it regardless, even if they know that they’re never going to win and that quite honestly is that blind sort of heroism that I adore.
"I'm on the side that's always lost; against the side of Heaven" goes the line from Leonard Cohen’s The Captain and that just about sums it up. Because of course good prevails and the bad guys lose but they never do give up fighting while there’s a last defiant breath in them.
All of which probably ties in with this at a tangent.
bad_rpers_suck in an attempt at cohesive procrastination today I came upon this post about problems in an RP where just about everybody was joining up with the bad guys rather than picking the other side. The question there posed being mostly; why?Which made me wonder because when I look over the characters I choose to write about both in discussion and in fic format they’re at least of dubious morality and at worse; hell-bent on total world destruction. Not that the destruction of humanity would be a bad thing, mind. Especially considering what we’ve managed to do to the planet. By which I mean that on that account at least; my viewpoint is somewhat biased since I really do believe that the absolute destruction of humanity would be a fine thing for the ecosystem. Though, and here my inherent hypocrisy becomes apparent; I’m not actually going to ever do anything about it. I like my decadent, corrupt little slice of European pie thank you very much. And my mythic island off the cost of mainland European can stay just the way it is so that I can enjoy it. Call it a touch of Byzantine sensibility if you like but there’s just something very easily complacent about knowing that things are perfectly rotten, accepting it and just doing little things to improve it in increments here and there. I’ve been talking about Greece recently so that’s not actually intended as a Trinity Blood reference btw. There is just something so very placid about just accepting that things will only change in increments in day to day life which is probably half the reason why nobody is busy RPing heroes. Because it’s just too different, too unfamiliar.
Often enough the hero of any given series has his own reasons, good reasons at that, for rushing off and saving the world but sometimes precisely because those reasons get fleshed out just a little too much the viewer gets bored with exploring said reasons hence the urge to RP the other chap who’s only a minor character instead. To use Trinity Blood as an example; Abel might be a good character to RP since he does have more than the obvious cover personality going on there but someone like Hugue might be rather conventionally dull. Because while Abel’s dark past is his own damn fault; Hugue’s misfortune exonerates him and makes him just your stock hero out on a mission to save his sister and restore his family honour. Then again, played correctly Hugue’s obsession with his sister could well prove that even the stock character of the wandering samurai does have some rather bizarre flaws.
The problem then is more that the storyline in most cases is carried by the heroes and their actions so unless you’re looking at an anti-hero archetype like Morecock’s Elric; the point would be for the hero to be shown in the best light. Nobody, usually, wants the story to consist of a hero who’s only a hero because the villain is a little bit worse. That would make a good plotline too really where the choice isn’t between good and evil but rather between the lesser of two evils. Falling back on Trinity Blood again if the choice were between Süleyman or Seth, you might get into trouble because while one is arguably crazy the other one seems to be a little girl playing at fairytales so which of them would really be worse?
All of which really answers the question in most respects. Since the ‘good’ characters can be just as multi-faceted as their opposition. So there really isn’t much of an excuse via that argument unless it’s really broken down into increments and the point, that I’m sure somebody made in a comment to that post, is really a matter of payoff.
The bad guys usually tend to wield a fair bit of power and via corrupt means tend to get what they want far sooner than the good guys who are relatively careful of following the rules. Though oddly enough that doesn’t at all have to be the case. James Bond is arguably a good guy and yet he murders people, blows things up on a regular basis, obviously engages in sexual relations entirely for the sex alone etc. All of which might usually be termed bad guy traits. Bond uses people, manipulates them continually, sometimes murders them too and a whole host of other things while still doing it for the cause. He’s not really what you’d call an anti-hero at all but his methods do deviate an awful lot from what would be described as Lawful Good.
Quick payoff and excess flaws don’t then have to be villainous traits at all which does then beg the question of why the villains might still be judged to be more appealing. That probably varies easily enough from person to person, ranging from things like being able to play a character entirely contrary to your own self or a character who gets to act out all those vicious little urges that people curtail in everyday life and so on. But in my case I suspect that the key appeal of the villain comes in the form of that tragic romanticism that means they’re never going to win. Raistlin’s never really going to become a god, Beruze is never really going to manage to destroy the entire aristocratic system and Seishrio has to die to win. Romantic tragic heroism then is my particular vice when it comes to picking favourites. Because they’re never going to win no matter how warped or honourable their cause. The revolution will never come but they still keep fighting for it regardless, even if they know that they’re never going to win and that quite honestly is that blind sort of heroism that I adore.
"I'm on the side that's always lost; against the side of Heaven" goes the line from Leonard Cohen’s The Captain and that just about sums it up. Because of course good prevails and the bad guys lose but they never do give up fighting while there’s a last defiant breath in them.
All of which probably ties in with this at a tangent.
