Some musings...
Aug. 30th, 2006 12:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccastareyesSo, I hang out on Journalfen. And I see a lot of stuff there -- whether it be Harry Potter Mary Sues or authors (and their fans) being asses. And I'm just remembering a point ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
limyaael made.
"Do not tell me that the hero is good and the villain is evil when their methods are exactly the same."
If your Harry PotterMary Sue alternate-universe female!Harry curses Ron for saying something insensitive to her, and sees nothing wrong with using Dark Magic to advance her means, do not expect me to think of her as a saint. If you advance the position that killing/maiming civilians, torturing enemy prisoners, and staging a coup because the country's leadership and people want to stay neutral is Good when you do it, but Evil when the other guys do it, pardon me while I Laugh in your Face.
Now, I have nothing against shades of grey. Shades of grey add realism. But you can't write shades of grey, then try to call it black and white. It makes me laugh. To use an example, there was a Deep Space 9 episode late in the series. The Dominion and the Cardassian Union were fighting the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire. The Federation was trying to get the Romulans on their side, but the Romulans were determined to stay neutral. Ben Sisko invites one of the important Romulans to his space station to try to change his mind. It doesn't work, and the Romulan leaves. His ship is destroyed, analysis makes it look like the Dominion did it, so Romulus declares war on the Dominion. Later, Sisko confronts Garak (everone's favorite Cardassian expatriatespy tailor), who pretty much confirms that he had been the one who planted explosives on the Romulan's ship, and tells Sisko 'I thought that's why you told me all those details about it, and let me help you work out the meeting. Because you knew what kind of person I am, and what I was willing to do.' Which troubles Sisko because -- well, he did know what kind of person Garak is, and maybe he's not as noble as he thought he was.
Now, if Sisko had lauded Garak as a hero (even in private), without any sign of 'Hey, you got me to deceive a person so you could kill him -- that's generally considered not-cool in the morals department', I think I would have thrown something at the TV. Similarly -- a lot of my friends write characters that do bad things for good reasons, or write characters that are worryingly psychopathic about their crusades -- characters that, while not black, are rather a darker shade of grey than most people. They do this without trying to present these characters as morally right (even if the characters are likeable to the players) -- even reminding me OOC that just because they like the character, and I like the character, doesn't mean my character wouldn't be scared shitless of their character.
Because 'for the greater good' isn't the same thing as 'good*'. 'Fighting evil' isn't the same thing as 'good'. 'Necessary' isn't the same as 'good' either. 'Best option' isn't the same as 'good'. Sometimes there isn't a 'good' choice, and you just have to go with the one you can live with most. And that's okay, because that's how life is.
* In the moral sense. Not in the 'good for me' sense.
limyaael made. "Do not tell me that the hero is good and the villain is evil when their methods are exactly the same."
If your Harry Potter
Now, I have nothing against shades of grey. Shades of grey add realism. But you can't write shades of grey, then try to call it black and white. It makes me laugh. To use an example, there was a Deep Space 9 episode late in the series. The Dominion and the Cardassian Union were fighting the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire. The Federation was trying to get the Romulans on their side, but the Romulans were determined to stay neutral. Ben Sisko invites one of the important Romulans to his space station to try to change his mind. It doesn't work, and the Romulan leaves. His ship is destroyed, analysis makes it look like the Dominion did it, so Romulus declares war on the Dominion. Later, Sisko confronts Garak (everone's favorite Cardassian expatriate
Now, if Sisko had lauded Garak as a hero (even in private), without any sign of 'Hey, you got me to deceive a person so you could kill him -- that's generally considered not-cool in the morals department', I think I would have thrown something at the TV. Similarly -- a lot of my friends write characters that do bad things for good reasons, or write characters that are worryingly psychopathic about their crusades -- characters that, while not black, are rather a darker shade of grey than most people. They do this without trying to present these characters as morally right (even if the characters are likeable to the players) -- even reminding me OOC that just because they like the character, and I like the character, doesn't mean my character wouldn't be scared shitless of their character.
Because 'for the greater good' isn't the same thing as 'good*'. 'Fighting evil' isn't the same thing as 'good'. 'Necessary' isn't the same as 'good' either. 'Best option' isn't the same as 'good'. Sometimes there isn't a 'good' choice, and you just have to go with the one you can live with most. And that's okay, because that's how life is.
* In the moral sense. Not in the 'good for me' sense.
