Heroes vs. anti-heroes: which do you prefer?

[StaceyPowers]

@The Blackangel mentioned in another thread about games and human nature that anti-heroes may be more realistic as characters than heroes. Do you prefer heroes or anti-heroes in your games, and why?

Personally, at least to some degree, I think that being a hero versus an anti-hero is in the eye of the beholder. Many people would call Joel from TLOU an anti-hero, I think, but I’d just consider him a hero.

[Shole]

I do think anti-heroes are more appealing. In my opinion, I love good written anti-heroes, but, it's not always good, most of them are just written like edgy rogues from a DnD campaign and you just want to kill them.

[Withywarlock]

Like with your example with Joel, I like the whole lawful/chaotic/good/evil spectrum to be blurred so we all get to decide for ourselves what is right, rather than a game telling us it is or not. I don't think Joel is either - he's just doing what it takes to survive which, taken to its most logical, pragmatic conclusion, is a very selfish goal. Selfishness is rarely - if ever - seen as heroic or the ends justifying the means, but he might see his actions in the final act that way. The writers might. I don't but I accept that a lot of his actions were necessary, just as cordyceps aren't evil when they spread spores to infect hosts solely for their survival.

Much as I like to lean toward anti-heroes, they're only as good as the ends which justify the means. An anti-hero isn't much good against a lawful-good leader; they have to be pitched against someone who also believes their way of survival and luxury is the right way. See the Punisher, who was made as a criticism of his world's judicial system which failed his wife and children, and a foil to Spiderman's own vigilante justice.

Is not the road to Hell paved with good intentions?

Edited December 27, 2020 by Withywarlock

[The Blackangel]

Arthur in RDR2 is a good example of an anti-hero. He's an outlaw, and not bothered by killing people. He robs and steals anything and everything. But he does have a code of honor that he lives by. So rather than a "save the princess" rhetoric, it's more of a survival and protecting his gang mindset. He does what he has to to keep everyone going and surviving. Regardless of what that is.

[m76]

I need to be able to identify with the player character's actions, goals, and motives. It doesn't matter if it's a classical hero, or an anti hero as long as their actions don't go against my own sense of right.

This is the reason I despised Geralt in the Witcher series, because his attitude (mostly towards women) was just plain unacceptable to me.

As for Joel I think at first he was a cynic, who later turned into a coward, but I could still like the game because his individual actions were morally justifiable even if he was doing things for the wrong reasons.

 

[killamch89]

I mean it depends on the character themselves. For instance, I always liked Dante from Devil May Cry. Yes, He's the hero but he does have a bit of edginess and risk-taking to him which appeals to me.

[Patrik]

Normally, everyone prefers Heroes, but some antagonists are so cool in games that you wish you play using their Character or want a special DLC that's about them

[Reality vs Adventure]

On 12/26/2020 at 3:19 PM, StaceyPowers said:

Personally, at least to some degree, I think that being a hero versus an anti-hero is in the eye of the beholder. Many people would call Joel from TLOU an anti-hero, I think, but I’d just consider him a hero.

A hero in the 'eye of the beholder' reminds me of the Assassin's Creed games. In Origins, Bayek takes revenge on those that killed his son and defeats corruption in the process. He is sworn to protect the people. In Odyssey, Kassandra is looking for her mother and has to defeat an evil cult, but the game doesn't really emphasize to protect the people. She even has conversations with the philosopher Socrates about killing. Is an assassin justified for killing as long as the corrupted is among the victims? Maybe that is neither hero or anti-hero. But just simply a selfish act of vengeance. 

 

23 hours ago, Withywarlock said:

Selfishness is rarely - if ever - seen as heroic or the ends justifying the means

So true

[StaceyPowers]

On 12/27/2020 at 12:30 AM, Withywarlock said:

I don't think Joel is either - he's just doing what it takes to survive which, taken to its most logical, pragmatic conclusion, is a very selfish goal.

Overall, I do think this is a correct description of him. But I feel there was more to the ending than that, and it took me a second playthrough to be sure I felt that way (and a couple of playthroughs of Left Behind). The imagery at the start of the game and the imagery at the end of it are close mirrors, and it seems to me that protecting what is innocent was a motive alongside survival. The soldier who shot Sarah was doing something pragmatic and logical, but also unnecessary. I got the impression what the Fireflies wanted to do with Ellie was potentially likewise. Plus, Riley seemed a clear source of virtue, and her words at the end of Left Behind were also similar to Joel's at the end of TLOU. I kind of felt like they reached the same decision point in different ways. Selfishness may not be heroic, but a character being selfish doesn't necessarily make him un-heroic either.

Note: I haven't played TLOU II yet. For all I know, all of the above is wrong.

On 12/27/2020 at 12:30 AM, Withywarlock said:

An anti-hero isn't much good against a lawful-good leader;

In terms of being effective against that leader strategically, or in terms of good storytelling? Honestly, lawful good leaders sometimes irk me, as they often tend to have a black and white view of the universe that just doesn't fit with real life. While trying not to dirty their hands, they end up causing more harm than good sometimes. They don't make good soldiers. They are more worried about protecting their egos than protecting others.

[m76]

12 minutes ago, StaceyPowers said:

 but a character being selfish doesn't necessarily make him un-heroic either.

Spoiler for TLou select to view

I think Joel saving Ellie was heroic, and I'm with him on that all the way. What I take issue with is what happens thereafter. Lying and covering it up. That was not about saving the innocent, that was about saving his own relationship with Ellie, which was the height of selfishness and that's where I've lost all respect and sympathy for him.

Edited December 28, 2020 by m76

[StaceyPowers]

2 minutes ago, m76 said:

Spoiler for TLou

I think Joel saving Ellie was heroic, and I'm with him on that all the way. What I take issue with is what happens thereafter. Lying and covering it up. That was not about saving the innocent, that was about saving his own relationship with Ellie, which was the height of selfishness and that's where I've lost all respect and sympathy for him.

I can't disagree with you there. I didn't lose all respect for him, but it was a rotten thing to do.

[Kane99]

The anti-hero tends to be the most fun character to play imo. I don't like to be weighed down by a moral compass unless I have to. 

19 minutes ago, m76 said:

Spoiler for TLou select to view

I think Joel saving Ellie was heroic, and I'm with him on that all the way. What I take issue with is what happens thereafter. Lying and covering it up. That was not about saving the innocent, that was about saving his own relationship with Ellie, which was the height of selfishness and that's where I've lost all respect and sympathy for him.

Oh of course, this was clear by his choice. He didn't care if she was a possible cure. I think he was tired of losing people. 

[Syntax]

TBH why not make it up to the player?

 

Idk if you guys have played Infamous, but that is a perfect example of how you can play as good, neutral, or evil and switch between them all throughout the game. 

 

As far as characters in the game, I think it depends on how they are based around the story. I kinda like anti-heros more, but really depends.

[Withywarlock]

1 hour ago, StaceyPowers said:

Selfishness may not be heroic, but a character being selfish doesn't necessarily make him un-heroic either.

I think what you say here and go on to say in your next paragraph is a fair assessment. I brought up the selfishness (again, survival if boiled down to its most raw substance) as an additional angle to the heroic/cowardly spectrum, like I typically do law and chaos to the debate of good and evil. Joel can be considered heroic for saving a life at the risk of his own, and that was likely the intent because it makes for a more dramatic story. Much as I disliked Joel's actions and wouldn't call him a hero, I can't call him a coward for the aforementioned risk of life and limb. Plus he's a human with limited time to act; logic doesn't fare well in such circumstances. To quote Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "love makes you do the wacky."

1 hour ago, StaceyPowers said:

In terms of being effective against that leader strategically, or in terms of good storytelling?

My apologies, I meant the latter. I feel as though fighting 'evil with evil', in the sense of Lawful Evil versus Chaotic evil, or Chaotic Good versus Lawful Evil is a much more interesting story than Lawful and Chaotic good fighting one another. But even while I use those terms liberally they're still only archetypes and still require competent writers to flesh those roles out, or add their own perceptions to them as you do. ^^

[StaceyPowers]

21 hours ago, Withywarlock said:

Much as I disliked Joel's actions and wouldn't call him a hero, I can't call him a coward for the aforementioned risk of life and limb.

I think I'd say overall he was a brave person, but the lie was certainly cowardly.

21 hours ago, Withywarlock said:

a much more interesting story than Lawful and Chaotic good fighting one another.

I think there must be solid examples of lawful vs chaotic good, but I will have to think on that! Most I can come up with are more like various versions of chaotic good fighting each other.