What does /co/ think of Good vs Evil as a story mechanic? I'm aware that it's a big part of superhero comics, but does one inherently become an edgelord for getting annoyed at the whole "good vs evil" thing?
>>83407404
Annoyed for what reason? Because it simplifies a conflict too much? Not really. Because you think that the bad guy is so much better than the good guy? Arguably.
Personally, I like it when there's shades of grey to it, typically in that "evil" isn't as evil as it seems, but I'm an optimist. The opposite school of thought on the matter is something like Punisher fans, where the "hero" is a ruthless serial killer who is only the hero because the ones he kills are such cartoonishly evil that they DO deserve to die.
>>83407404
i mean, it's a good one, obviously.
It's a cyclic thing. People did get bored of good/evil dichotomy stories... but now it's hero vs hero that's been milked to death instead so people are now yearning for honest super stuff.
>>83407404
What's wrong with it? Superheroes fight bad guys, it's part of their job prescription of helping people and society. That's like getting angry at cop shows for arresting murderers and rapists.
And if you're so annoyed by "good vs evil" than congragulations, there's plenty of comics about heroes fighting other heroes and other morally ambiguous stuff for edgelords like you to read.
The Hero vs Hero thing doesn't really work differently because they just shoe horn one side to be evil in the end so nothing has changed.
>>83407404
the big mistake in trying to avoid good vs evil conflicts is you just make good vs good or evil vs evil conflicts where neither side is compelling.
the better solution is to aim for political conflict rather than moral conflict. people who, when all is said and done, care more about the survival and prosperity of their own 'tribe' whose actions are motivated by scarcity of resources, territory, and weapons with which to defend their-selves, and make no apology for it.
Conflict is conflict. I couldn't care less about the basis about it as long as the conflict is interesting.
One way of doing that is by making both sides interesting. And while it might fly in the face of people who want characters loaded up with empathy potential, it's totally possible to write a character who is pure "evil" that's damn entertaining
>>83407404
I like it as a template but recognize it's a very easy concept to fuck up over time.
A story I'm reading right now involves a character that strives to be good but after enough time ends up becoming something of an anti-villain because his changing views of life increasingly puts him at odds with the other characters despite never going full edgelord/anti-hero.
I like characters who are fully aware some of their actions may very well be evil, but rationalize it or justify it one way or the other
>>83407404
>What does /co/ think of Good vs Evil as a story mechanic?
Like any other well-used trope, people need to stop and think about WHY they're using it in their works. The framing of one side of a conflict as "evil" and the other "good" is going to be a major part of the context a story is in, and doing that blindly is pretty sloppy.
>>83407827
Agreed. There are two rules for making characters. You can do both but one is suffice.
1. Your character has to be empathetic.
2. Your character has to be entertaining.
If your major character has at least ONE of these traits, you're fine. If not, then you're fucked.
>>83408483
Probably true. Blind usage of tropes is probably why we have so many crap good vs evil stories. They're no inherently bad, but some of them, even when they're not taken seriously can be pretty cringeworthy.
