Black and Gray Morality: Difference between revisions

These can be deeply unsatisfying. Movie-goers want a hero to celebrate and a villain to vilify. But if both sides have flaws and redeeming qualities, [[Viewers are Morons|how do they know which is which]]? How can a writer create such a satisfying world without making it all impossibly unrealistic?

 

 

Obviously, the heroes of such settings tend to be [[Anti-Hero|antiheroes]] In such a world, any characters who appear to be good in any way will eventually be revealed as a [[Knight Templar]] in disguise, a [[Dark Messiah]] inches from the edge, or a [[Moral Dissonance|deeply flawed]] [[Anti-Hero]]. And if there ''are'' any [[Wide-Eyed Idealist|genuinely good]] characters on the show, they'll either 'come around' to the [[The Dark Side]], die horribly, remain a figure of [[Butt Monkey|perpetual mockery]] or, if ''very'' lucky, [[Knight in Sour Armor|grow a protective shell of cynicism]].

# Are they still unquestionably painted as being "on the right side?" By virtue of the other side being worse? Whether the author is successful or not does not matter.

 

 

See also [[Shades of Conflict]], [[Grey and Gray Morality]], [[Black and White Morality]], [[Evil Versus Evil]], [[Crapsack World]], [[Sliding Scale of Idealism vs. Cynicism]]. The inverse is [[But Not Too Evil]]. Contrast with [[White and Grey Morality]], where everyone has some nobility to them, and the thematically similar [[Designated Hero]], a much more parodied trope which features a protagonist that is selfish and cowardly as opposed to a bastard.

Also compare [[Nominal Hero]], where a character on the side of good doesn't have any good intentions.

 

 

{{examples}}