Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/46943
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

**From an analysis standpoint, I'm trying to determine what classification the antagonist and protagonist in my story would fall under in terms of the classic literary labels of "hero," "villain," "antihero," and "antivillain" (or whether they fall under something else entirely).**

In my story, the primary antagonist is a Nobel Laureate scientist who wants to effect a massive change on humanity. He has decided what he thinks is the ideal state for the human race and he will stop at nothing to bring his vision to fruition. The protagonist has decided that the scientist is an insane terrorist, and likewise will stop at nothing to prevent him from achieving his goals.

However, even so, the antagonist takes great pains to avoid killing, while the protagonist has no problem killing any of the many minions opposing him in the scientist's "terrorist organization."

This is because of the protagonist's convictions that the scientist is an insane terrorist, and because the scientist has, despite mostly avoiding violence, committed what could easily be considered a violent act on the protagonist by using him as an unwilling guinea pig for testing out the changes he wants to make to humanity.

The protagonist is a charismatic warrior with a strong sense of justice, while the scientist is a cold and calculating pragmatic thinker with an occasional flair for the dramatic.

Ultimately, the protagonist fails, and the scientist succeeds in his plans and causes the massive change in humanity he wanted.

However, it turns out the scientist's changes to the human race actually are for the better, and despite having them forced upon them, the people ultimately come to accept the changes as beneficial.

For his part, the protagonist was so busy trying to stop the scientist from doing to others what was done to him that he never stopped to think about whether or not what was done to him was a good thing in the first place. He finds himself conflicted and "on the wrong side of history" as the people turn against him and demand that he end his crusade against the scientist.

**My question is thus:** In this scenario, how would one classify both the protagonist warrior and antagonist scientist?

Is the scientist a villain, since his motives are clearly impure an he is "evil" in a classical sense, or is he an antivillain, or even an antihero, as the world is made a better place through his actions, regardless of his means and motives?

Similarly, is the warrior a hero, since he clearly has "pure" motives of justice and "good" by "killing the bad guys," is he an antihero due to his greater willingness to kill, or is he a antivillain because, despite being classically "good," he is ultimately working against the benefit of humanity?

Original score: 2