Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Is a lawful good "antagonist" effective?

Parent

Is a lawful good "antagonist" effective?

+8
−0

In my post-apocalyptic novel, my protagonist is not necessarily "good", and although the antagonist is an honest and kind person, my protagonist perceives her as "evil". My antagonist is the leader of a group of survivors, and cares deeply for her family and group, and is extremely suspicious of my protagonist.

The way I constructed the antagonist's character (and according to the results of an alignment test I took from her point of view), she's lawful good. That aligns with how I see her, and how I'm writing her right now. I still want the reader to resent and sometimes hate her, just like my protagonist does, but I'm afraid my readers are going to start sympathizing with her when I want their loyalties to lie with my protagonist, no matter how bad she is.

Can I still make my antagonist an effective "bad guy", despite the fact that she is, truly, lawful good? Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?
+6
−0

You just need your audience to sympathize with your protagonist. This sympathy can be based on shared identity, or shar …

5y ago

+5
−0

The classic example of an effective Lawful Good antagonist is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables. He is a good person …

5y ago

+5
−0

Two Lawful Good people can still end up violently opposed, they just need to have different views of reality, laws or go …

5y ago

+4
−0

Evil doesn't exist... I'm always reminded of a fairly recent Doctor Who episode (link): > Bill : Is everything out her …

5y ago

+2
−0

There is almost never just one antagonist in a story. There may be a chief antagonist, a person who is directly working …

5y ago

+2
−0

Yes, you can have both. In the Fugitive 1993 film Tommy Lee Jones is a Federal Marshall pursuing wrongly-convicted Harri …

5y ago

+2
−0

A good recipe for a tragedy is a character constellation where you have multiple good people who only have the best inte …

5y ago

+2
−0

The Federal Marshall in The Fugitive (starring Harrison Ford) is an example of a lawful yet dislikable antagonist. So ye …

5y ago

+2
−0

Antagonists are not necessarily bad guys. They prevent your protagonist from achieving her goals. Free yourself of the …

5y ago

+2
−0

The answer to this lies in (frustratingly) another question: Why does your protagonist consider them "evil"? If you ca …

5y ago

+1
−0

I wrote an answer to a similar question a while ago: https://writing.codidact.com/questions/34255#answer-34261 Like i …

5y ago

+1
−0

Stories can be told with protagonists and antagonists all over the moral spectrum and remain interesting and good storie …

5y ago

+1
−0

People are Complicated And also compartmentalized. You can find a lot of examples in history of admirable, honest peopl …

5y ago

+1
−0

of course it is fine. It all depends on what your story is. Remember, the antagonist doesn't have to be the bad guy... …

5y ago

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43428. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

Post
+2
−0

There is almost never just one antagonist in a story. There may be a chief antagonist, a person who is directly working against the protagonist, but most stories are not actually like that, and even in the ones that are, there is more than one force, more than one person, whose actions frustrate the protagonist's goals. Some of those forces may lie within the protagonist themselves.

Not only may some of those antagonists be morally good, I would suggest that some of them have to be. After all, what forces prevent the protagonist from achieving their goals? Some are the evil forces they are striving against. But some of them are the moral constraints that the protagonist works under. If the protagonist was unconstrained by any moral consideration, they could throw any force, any weapon, any stratagem against the principal antagonist without constraint. That would make it much easier to win. But it would make for a much less interesting story. The constraints of the moral law on the actions of the hero create the kind of moral dilemma that is a central feature of the plot of many stories.

So yes, not only may an antagonist be lawful good, it is very close to being an iron role that some antagonists at least must be lawful and good or there will be no story. In some cases, the principle antagonist may be lawful and good. Nor does this mean that the protagonist must be evil. Sometimes it is entirely appropriate that the protagonist loses in their quest, though they may gain something other than what they were seeking. This is often the shape of the maturation plot, for instance.

The QB loses the big game but gains the respect of the dorky-but-hot girl with the adorable younger brother that the best receiver on the team is bullying. QB exposes the bully, who is benched, thus causing the team to lose the championship game. Hero loses, but really wins. The main antagonist here is not the bully, it is the dorky-but-hot girl who is, of course, the sum of all virtues, and who turns down the QB's advances, until the tearful scene at the where she learns of his heroism and ... well, you've seen the movie.

The moral order itself is an antagonist in most stories, constraining the ways in which the protagonist pursues their goals, perhaps even to the extent of preventing them from achieving those goals. The US targeting of Qasem Soleimani is a case in point. No one weeps for Soleimani, but there is great debate over whether killing this very bad man was a violation of the moral constraints under which the US should have acted. The moral code constrains how good people prosecute their struggle against bad people. Thus it is an antagonist in their stories.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)
General comments
Amadeus‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

+1, I can't edit your answer, but "entirely appropriate the the protagonist loses" sets off my OCD bat signal...

Mark Baker‭ wrote almost 5 years ago

@Amadeus, fixed, thanks.