Distinguishing Character Alignment
Mar. 1st, 2019 07:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithMy partner Doug watches more entertainment than I do. Often when I walk through the living room, something is playing on the television screen. Fight scenes are pretty common.
It occurred to me that I can't always tell which side the characters are on from a quick glance. That is, the characters assigned as "good guys" and "bad guys" aren't readily distinguishable by fighting style. If they're not flagged as Obviously Evil or Obviously Good with costuming or other features that designate their politics, it's difficult to detect. Even some of the historic trends are fading somewhat -- the costumes used to be much more distinct. Now it's pretty common to have both sides dressed in black urban combat outfits or something similar. Distinctions between fighting styles are long gone in most cases. About the only thing that commonly remains is color-coded blaster fire.
I think it's an effect of the slide toward Grey and Gray Morality. That is, the primary distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is not their ethical framework, goals, methods, or other objectively observable aspects. It's which team the author is rooting for. In which case, you know, they really should use different-colored shirts so viewers can tell the teams apart. I wind up thinking that many contemporary entertainers are lazy, sloppy, ignorant, or all three.
As a consumer of entertainment in any form, I find it unfulfilling when I can't really relate to or sympathize with any of the characters, when they all seem pretty much the same. They're just some jerks I don't know smacking each other around. It's not my idea of fun. Conversely, when both sides are sympathetic but they're too balanced, I don't enjoy that either. It means the only way I'll be satisfied with the ending is if both sides somehow win, and very few writers are creative enough to resolve that kind of conflict without it being obvious from the start and therefore pointless. If a side I really sympathize with loses, I am unhappy with the ending, even if another side I also sympathize with has won.
I do love complexities, though. I like exploring how messed-up people still have things they care about, and how well-meaning people can screw up. Most of life is complicated; few issues have simple solutions. Most people have a mix of positive and negative traits; it's the balance that matters. Figuring out which way someone tilts is vitally important to surviving and thriving in life.
So then, if you're writing characters, think about why they have the ethical framework they do and how they show that. What are their good or evil traits? What will they do, what won't they do, and why? How long do you have to watch them before you can peg their alignment? The closer to the middle of the spectrum, the longer it tends to take. The farther toward either extreme, the faster and easier it gets to clock them as Good or Evil -- or Lawful or Chaotic, or Superhero or Supervillain, or whatever other spectrum you choose. The gray hats may look white or black depending on context, but an Unsullied Hero or Diabolical Villain should pop out pretty quick.
What do you think? How easy is it for you to distinguish characters based on traits and behaviors? How well do you think authors convey alignment through action? What are your preferences in entertainment?
It occurred to me that I can't always tell which side the characters are on from a quick glance. That is, the characters assigned as "good guys" and "bad guys" aren't readily distinguishable by fighting style. If they're not flagged as Obviously Evil or Obviously Good with costuming or other features that designate their politics, it's difficult to detect. Even some of the historic trends are fading somewhat -- the costumes used to be much more distinct. Now it's pretty common to have both sides dressed in black urban combat outfits or something similar. Distinctions between fighting styles are long gone in most cases. About the only thing that commonly remains is color-coded blaster fire.
I think it's an effect of the slide toward Grey and Gray Morality. That is, the primary distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is not their ethical framework, goals, methods, or other objectively observable aspects. It's which team the author is rooting for. In which case, you know, they really should use different-colored shirts so viewers can tell the teams apart. I wind up thinking that many contemporary entertainers are lazy, sloppy, ignorant, or all three.
As a consumer of entertainment in any form, I find it unfulfilling when I can't really relate to or sympathize with any of the characters, when they all seem pretty much the same. They're just some jerks I don't know smacking each other around. It's not my idea of fun. Conversely, when both sides are sympathetic but they're too balanced, I don't enjoy that either. It means the only way I'll be satisfied with the ending is if both sides somehow win, and very few writers are creative enough to resolve that kind of conflict without it being obvious from the start and therefore pointless. If a side I really sympathize with loses, I am unhappy with the ending, even if another side I also sympathize with has won.
I do love complexities, though. I like exploring how messed-up people still have things they care about, and how well-meaning people can screw up. Most of life is complicated; few issues have simple solutions. Most people have a mix of positive and negative traits; it's the balance that matters. Figuring out which way someone tilts is vitally important to surviving and thriving in life.
So then, if you're writing characters, think about why they have the ethical framework they do and how they show that. What are their good or evil traits? What will they do, what won't they do, and why? How long do you have to watch them before you can peg their alignment? The closer to the middle of the spectrum, the longer it tends to take. The farther toward either extreme, the faster and easier it gets to clock them as Good or Evil -- or Lawful or Chaotic, or Superhero or Supervillain, or whatever other spectrum you choose. The gray hats may look white or black depending on context, but an Unsullied Hero or Diabolical Villain should pop out pretty quick.
What do you think? How easy is it for you to distinguish characters based on traits and behaviors? How well do you think authors convey alignment through action? What are your preferences in entertainment?
Who cares?
Date: 2019-03-02 03:56 am (UTC)But let's take another example: ANY fight in season one of Agents of SHIELD. Which ones were the good guys? SHIELD? The guys with the mandatory incarceration and enslavement of "enhanced" individuals?
No, wait, it's starting to seem like I'm picking on the superhero genre.
How do you know who the bad guys are in a movie like the Bourne series? That's easy-- EVERYBODY but the main character and a reluctant sidekick of some type, who may get fridged halfway through the movie.
Frankly, I wonder how well I've managed to convey alignments, especially for characters like Cold Cash, or Juan Carlos, who are actively working as villians, or for average characters like Wayne or Victor.
Re: Who cares?
Date: 2019-03-02 07:02 am (UTC)Yeah, that was pathetic. If you create tension between characters, it is your authorial responsibility to explain it. They could have given good examples of points in the Accords where people disagreed. Look at contract law in business, or actual negotiation between countries -- they're fraught with disagreements. Nobody could be arsed to look up any of that? What a disgrace.
I still want to do a piece on how Terramagne would handle that, because the team would just go, "Fine, you don't want our help, solve your supervillain problems yourselves. We'll go work somewhere else." That's how Rabid City lost all its superheroes and became a party town for the supervillains. ZOT!
But internationally, it would be a team leaving a midrange country and moving to, say, the Maldives. By the time the former host realized their mistake and tried to get them back, it would be too late. They'd already be happily ensconced in an island nation that treats them well. This is why other countries are hemorrhaging talent, and just starting to realize that they may have a problem. Too bad, so sad, you should have thought of that before you treated people like garbage.
>> But let's take another example: ANY fight in season one of Agents of SHIELD. Which ones were the good guys? SHIELD? The guys with the mandatory incarceration and enslavement of "enhanced" individuals? <<
That was appalling. I bailed when they threw a tantrum because Skye, whom they had kidnapped, wasn't Stockholmed and retained some of her previous loyalties. >_< Fuuuuuck that. I didn't even make it to the Thor crossover episode I had wanted to see. The characters were all assholes and the setting was miserable.
>> No, wait, it's starting to seem like I'm picking on the superhero genre.<<
Shooting fish in a barrel, eh.
>> How do you know who the bad guys are in a movie like the Bourne series? <<
They're on the screen.
>> That's easy-- EVERYBODY but the main character and a reluctant sidekick of some type, who may get fridged halfway through the movie.<<
I really have no idea why people like that series.
>> Frankly, I wonder how well I've managed to convey alignments, especially for characters like Cold Cash, or Juan Carlos, who are actively working as villians, or for average characters like Wayne or Victor.<<
I think you do a great job most of the time. You point out what they will and won't do. Cold Cash said that supervillainy was a mistake, which is laudable -- but he didn't point out what better decision he could have made with his then resources. Juan Carlos is honorable as hell, despite being an assassin. Wayne is only for hire to beat people up, not kill them even by accident. Victor is exactly as patchy as makes sense for someone stuck at teen age. And they're all different from each other, interesting people that I like to follow around.
Re: Who cares?
Date: 2019-03-02 08:40 am (UTC)Re: Who cares?
Date: 2019-03-02 09:31 am (UTC)Wayne is interesting because he sticks to his ethics even when it's difficult. He stuck with the picket despite his girlfriend dumping him and people hassling him. He was leery of Devon. But when Devon showed up with a raging migraine, Wayne took care of him.
Re: Who cares?
Date: 2019-03-02 02:57 pm (UTC)Re: Who cares?
Date: 2019-03-03 09:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-02 06:04 am (UTC)Well ...
Date: 2019-03-02 07:38 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-03 03:43 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-04 01:23 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-04 02:28 am (UTC)I always felt sorry for that one Klingon: "How long has this bird been dead?!"
Imagine how horrified a modern American would be by the historic practice of aging fowl until the carcass fell to the ground.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-05 06:56 pm (UTC)I grew up in hunting/fishing culture, but one of the main problems was some deer hunters clearly didn't know how to properly prepare and cook venison. My father, a preacher, would never turn down a free meal, and members of his congregation were always inviting us to venison dinners. We had some very good venison dinners and some truly awful ones. OTOH, most of the fishers knew how to properly prepare fish so there were usually some good fish dinners.
You're right in that most modern Americans would freak out over this information.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-05 11:15 pm (UTC)I've seen various discussions of different ways to handle birds, and aging meat is a running debate in most circles.
>> The only semi-direct knowledge I have about killing and cooking birds was my mother's memories of growing up on a farm. Her Sunday job was to catch and kill and clean and pluck and cook a chicken for Sunday dinner. This was during the Great Depression.<<
When I was 2 and 3, my mother raised chickens. She didn't want to water them through winter so we killed and froze the birds in autumn. I helped catch them, hold the feet, and after they were dead my main job was coring out the guts because my hands were smallest. It was a cool project.
*chuckle* Until I got to kill the rooster that always attacked me. I was juuust big enough to swing the ax, but that left Grandma holding the feet, and she let go too soon. So the headless rooster ran out into the field with Mom chasing him. LOL It's one of my favorite family memories.
>> I grew up in hunting/fishing culture, but one of the main problems was some deer hunters clearly didn't know how to properly prepare and cook venison. <<
Bluntly put, if you treated a prize steer the way some people treat deer, it would taste "gamey" too!
1) Kill cleanly. If you paunch the damn deer and trail it for hours, the stress chemicals impart a taste to the meat that few people enjoy. Stop cocking around trying to hit a heart the size of your hand, because if you miss then you've got hours of trailing. Take a poacher's shot to the head or upper spine. Either you miss completely, or the deer lays down dead.
2) Field-dress the deer immediately. Carry what you need to string it up and process it right there.
3) If you expect to kill the deer more than about an hour from refrigeration, pack ice in your truck so you can chill it promptly.
4) Don't hunt anywhere for food that the regulations lead to unsafe food handling. Only hunt for trophies in those places, if you consider that ethical. Really. Check the regs before you pull the trigger. Some places have laws that can make you sick or kill you if followed.
>> My father, a preacher, would never turn down a free meal, and members of his congregation were always inviting us to venison dinners. We had some very good venison dinners and some truly awful ones. OTOH, most of the fishers knew how to properly prepare fish so there were usually some good fish dinners.<<
Yeah, it all comes down to knowledge and responsibility.
>> You're right in that most modern Americans would freak out over this information.<<
They just don't stop to think of it.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-02 07:27 am (UTC)Why is this relevant? Because the GM threw in a hidden twist. There were *two* "good guy" teams that didn't know about each other (FBI and CIA?).
Much to the amusement of the "bad guys" the "good" teams spotted each other and each thought the other was the bad guys. Which I understand has happened in the real world all too often.
So while the "good guys" were taking each other out, the "bad guys finished assembling the bomb, told the GM where it was, and when it was still there an hour later, ruled that they'd been successful in destroying the city.
The intro to the article about it in the gaming magazine started out "On [date] we lost [city]..."
Oh yeah, the bad guys got extra points for audacity. They assembled the "bomb" under the registration desk for the con :-)
Anyway, this is an example of "can't tell the players without a score card" and how it can really mess up things, as well as of how "good guys" sometimes aren't (though not intentionally)
It's *harder* to do this sort of characterization, but when you can pull it off the result can be very good. When youn't they can be really bad.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-02 11:00 am (UTC)In many cases, you'd be right. Although you missed the main reason... they're hurried .
Time really is money in the biz, and no writer works well when substituting caffeine for sleep and with no time to do anything other than going with the first idea that occurs to them...
and management's solution is to employ a writing committee, on the rational that if it takes one writer X days to come up with a story then employing N writers means it will take them X/N days instead. Not that it does, it's more like it takes the committee X^N days instead. Most of which are spent in meetings, or meetings about meetings.
This is why some of the best shows have either a single writer, or very small team [a pair usually] that know each other well.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-02 04:10 pm (UTC)But that reminds me of a math word problem that someone posted that went something like this:
Well ...
Date: 2019-03-02 10:26 pm (UTC)Do it fast, do it wrong, do it over.
>>This is why some of the best shows have either a single writer, or very small team [a pair usually] that know each other well.<<
I don't know, some of the greatest shows achieved their greatness by spreading out the workload and hiring famous science fiction writers of the time. The Twilight Zone and Star Trek are famous for it. That works really well in episodic shows where you can just give people a series bible and let them go to town. If you want a longer story arc, just say X episodes of that and Y standalones.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2019-03-03 05:42 am (UTC)Well, we're in agreement on that as far as I can tell, so I'm really just responding to your dubious "I don't know".
Follow the moral Labyrinth
Date: 2019-03-02 04:33 pm (UTC)Examples: Westerns being cowboys vs. "Indians", cops vs. robbers, Westerners vs. Russians (Communists), and Robin Hood and his Merry Men vs Prince John, the evil Sheriff of Nottingham, and the sheriff's men. I'm keeping to American children's culture of the Seventies and Eighties for where the underlying concepts may have gone wrong.
So, we have two different pushes here, a progressive thought that discrimination against others is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged, and the conservative side having pushed enough restatement of history and saving face through textbooks and other media to say that the American Civil War, War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression, wasn't about slavery and human rights, oh no, it was about "states' rights". I'm very glad my Teen's school is going BACK to each statement of secession and therefore showing the students how to counter that propaganda, with the state's own words.
So, critical thinking of how to decide if something is good or evil, AND ALSO how to differentiate between following the laws or regulations and actually doing the right thing, has been discouraged, for several generations of American education at least.
As a library technical assistant, I needed to take a class in Education (and two different psychology classes) as part of my associate degree requirements. I passed with an easy A, because I knew how to debate the opinions being taught that seemed flawed, and when I wouldn't be able to make other students or the professor understand. We need MORE influential polymaths, or Renaissance people. My associate degree in business with marketing classes taught me how to create marketing and propaganda and I could see those layers clearly in the way topics were being taught, in education. One change to the education system needs to be mastery of topics and critical thinking skills to level students and age is not the guiding criteria for the level in school.
So, we have the losers of the Civil War getting into history and education to tell "their side of the story" and to establish Jim Crow laws. We have historical Nazis looking at Jim Crow laws and ideas and further elaborating upon them and the Inquisition and Spanish Expulsion to find more ways of getting "nice people" to accept horrible things happening or even doing them as "I was just following orders" reasoning. Finally, we have the Cold War becoming instead of an "OMG bigger badder threat displays" actually going underground into a propaganda war that's beating anyone progressive here, at least moral injuries, sometimes physically as well.
Did I demonstrate the pattern at least? Distinguishing alignments and critical thinking about characters has been discouraged for generations now.
Re: Follow the moral Labyrinth
Date: 2019-03-03 02:25 am (UTC)When things are too black-and-white, they are neither accurate nor entertaining. The same problems occur when it's all grey-and-gray. We need a balance.
>> So, we have two different pushes here, a progressive thought that discrimination against others is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged, <<
True.
>> and the conservative side having pushed enough restatement of history and saving face through textbooks and other media to say that the American Civil War, War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression, wasn't about slavery and human rights, oh no, it was about "states' rights". <<
Well, both of those things played into it. Without the state rights argument, it wouldn't have come to the point of warfare. With it, if they hadn't fought over slavery, it would've been something else. Underlying both of those issues is an economic divide so deep that it still has an overwhelming influence on politics and culture. It's important to remember that slavery was the trigger. But if we forget the rest of the factors, they're never going to get fixed, and a lot of that shit is still causing severe problems.
>> I'm very glad my Teen's school is going BACK to each statement of secession and therefore showing the students how to counter that propaganda, with the state's own words. <<
Useful to know.
>>So, critical thinking of how to decide if something is good or evil, AND ALSO how to differentiate between following the laws or regulations and actually doing the right thing, has been discouraged, for several generations of American education at least. <<
Yeah, that was fading when I was in school. Now they don't want people too educated, or folks might notice what a fucking mess the world is and blame their leaders for fucking it up.
>> We need MORE influential polymaths, or Renaissance people. <<
If only.
>> One change to the education system needs to be mastery of topics and critical thinking skills to level students and age is not the guiding criteria for the level in school. <<
That would be nice, but I don't see it happening. There are school systems based on science of child development and mindbody balance -- Montessori and Waldorf among them -- but they are not popular, because they are more work for the adults. Schools are designed for the convenience of people in power, not the students. The public education system started out training people to be factory workers and is now far more focused on creating prison inmates. It is not designed to produce healthy citizens or creative thinkers.
>>Did I demonstrate the pattern at least? Distinguishing alignments and critical thinking about characters has been discouraged for generations now. <<
Sadly so.
?...!(?)
Date: 2019-03-03 04:21 pm (UTC)Re: ?...!(?)
Date: 2019-03-03 06:09 pm (UTC)