City of IF

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Yet again, another debate for the IF Quirer. I'm not sure if I can word this correctly, but here we go!

In many stories, the "Hero" seems to be allowed liberties that no normal person would be allowed. They break laws, but through their actions, bring about an end that enough people wished for that they do not feel the need to punish the Hero for breaking these laws. Such as, taking something that doesn't belong to them from a treasure vault, or a museum. Or perhaps, forceing one of the misguided good guys to open a door, or some other such thing, on the threat of their life.

The debate here is, Do the ends justify the means? Just because a good was brought about, does that mean the bads can be dismissed? This is only in terms of stories, so try and keep that in mind. Would you like to see more heros punished for the crimes the comit durring their quests, or does that just ruin the spirit of the tale?

Well? Have at it!

[Shillelagh]

Ummm... I'm not really sure how to respond to this. My first thought is the RPG hero of a video game, who gets to walk straight into people's houses, talk to them, take anything they have lying around, and then leave. I mean, it's a classic Machiavellian argument, but it really loses something in its transistion to literature. Anything that happens will happen for a specific reason.

If it's a seedy crime drama, the character will try and go above the law, get in trouble, and then we'll have a nice plot angle. If it's closer to a light-hearted superhero tale, then the police are inept and the hero has to overstep legal bounds to save the day but its okay because no one cares when he wins. It's not so much that the characters don't care as it is that the mood of the story will be ruined if they care. So, by necessity of plot, they don't care.

If the boundary is good versus evil instead of legal versus illegal, it's still the same sort of thing. If it's closer to a morality tale, the character skirting the line loses, or somehow falls from grace. If the tale is more mature, they can blurr the lines, and you have characters who serve the greater good while commiting a lot of small evils.

It doesn't really matter what the answer is, because the story is written to promote a view. Or it contains the conscious or subconscious views of the author. Or its been written to provoke a reaction from the audience. Whatever the reason... the answer is solely for story purposes. The answer itself is pointless.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Hmmmm. . . . . But what would you prefer personaly? I have this overlaying want for heros who do things that are particulary wrong to at least be chided for doing so, even if it was for the "greater good". . . .

[Emperor]

It all boils down to what are the rules of the world in which you are writing for. Shillelagh makes several good points and in reality there isn't too much to add. I can only speak on what I plow my creative endeavors into and for me it all comes down to how much realism I am going for. Like you Pope, I don't like it when my "good guys" just get away with things, so in the end I make them work for it. Sometimes that means they are being chided, or being accosted, or their own internal darkness seems to override them. You have to simply look at your story, your characters and decide what makes this work. If its more compelling to let you "good guy" get away with something that us normal people wouldn't, then let him get away with it. On the opposite end of that though you always have to be prepared to bring some retribution down.

[Thunderbird]

I've enjoyed reading this discussion so far. And the premise of it is intriguing as its something I've often given thought to as well.

And I guess all I can really say about this is that it boils down to 'suspension of disbelief'. This was a term we used in theater. When an actor deviates his performance from how a real person would behave in a particular situation we cause the audience to break their 'suspension of disbelief'. This is jarring and makes the story less compelling and interesting to follow. Sometimes it can be done in an artistic manner that makes it obvious it was intentional, such as in an aside, when the actor turns to address the audience to express something about what they are thinking right then. That breaks suspension of disbelief but we forgive it because its an understandable handicap in expressing something that needed to be said then.

But I find that if consequences are never upheld for protagonists simply because the protagonist has the role of being the protagonist, it becomes a painful breach of reality and thus creates a nasty suspension of disbelief. If its a matter that's skirted and flirted with in rational ways, it can be pulled off and often upholds the value of the story over the cold hard reality of a similar situation in RL. But when it goes too far, which I feel in modern storytelling media often does, it becomes a little distasteful. So as an author, its something to weigh out - how much to hold the reality of cause and effect over the heads of our fictional characters. Go too far in either direction and you can create a problem for your audience.

[kc9cra]

As the Empiror says, it really depends on the story. It depends on how realistic you're trying to be. If the story takes place in a fantacy world, it's all up to you. If it's supposed to take place in the real world, it depends on how real you want it to be. Most of the time, the situation has a lot of variables. For example, are we talking about moral responsibility or social? If your character steals something, but there is no camera, and noone's around, it's likely he/she won't get caught, but do they think stealing is wrong? Are they paranoid about getting caught.

Even in fantacies, the characters are often assumed to be human in the way they think, so the rule of thumb that TBird mentioned earlier applies.

The reader could assume that any social, moral, or legal consequences may come after the story ends. If you plan to write a sequal, it might be a good idea to take this in to consideration. If you plan for your character to have been foundout but not aprehended, they may need to watchout while visiting a certain jurisdiction in the sequal. If they are punished, you can mention this in the sequal.

Another idea is to add this information to the end of a story. The idea here is that the actions taken must be managed some how. Your character might get away with all or some of them. If so, you might want to write how. Your character may be caught and punished for one or more of their actions, they might feel compelled to confess, they might be given murcy by the authorities, but may suffer social rejection, whatever. You can either write this in after the climax during the conclusion where most of the uncertainties are cleared up, or you can write an epilogue. This gives you the chance to jump ahead further. Either way, it's up to the writer.

[HalfEmptyHero]

I would like to address two points in my reply. First, context is everything. There is no clear cut right or wrong in story telling, it simply must adhere to the rules one creates. If it does, and protagonist escapes all trouble, then so be it. But if it breaks the previously established rules of the world, then it will not flow well. This leads to plot holes and such. If you want an example of plot holes, read Harry Potter.

My second and last point is that as the writer you are writing about what happened, not what didn't happen. Let me give you an example. Bob is a superhero. He is mortal and has no super powers, sort of like Batman. Now in the vast majority of cases, a man who fell off of a five story building would get hurt and probably wouldn't be walking. But I am not writing about them, I am writing about Bob. Bob just so happened to fall off the building and continued to limp away. This goes for all things, crimes included. If a superhero destroyed my shop just to catch a criminal, I would be angry. But it's not about me, it's about the shop owner that didn't get angry. All the pieces fit together to create the story, and while they might seem unlikely, we aren't writing about what didn't happen but what did.

[Cremuex Levier]

I kind of see this like when you have to choose to whether or not to kill a child that you know is going to grow up to be evil. If you do kill the child, you've done a small evil but prevented a much greater evil from presenting itself. If you don't kill the child, it will become a monstrous villain that tortures and kills innocent people. Personally, I wouldn't kill the child, just because you prevent one evil doesn't mean another one, possibly worse, won't come up. Better the devil you know I guess.

I know killing a child would certainly be classed as a (maybe necessary?) evil in some cases but in the Marvel universe (Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game, it's a tabletop RPG) there are consequences for those that break the law. People get worried if they don't know who the hero is, even though it saving their tails they still don't want someone with that much power that they can't hold accountable for their actions because they don't know who it is. Even if you break into a building that has hostages in it, you can still get done for break and entering and property damages. I understand that having special abilities comes with the will to use them but you don't always have to keep the 'inept' police in the dark. Perhaps they wouldn't be so inept if they knew the villain had certain weaknesses that the heroes know about, or the whereabouts of their lair, or what weapon they have so that they can protect the civilians of the town. Just because you have powers doesn't mean you can't trust other people enough to let them help you.

I don't think it's so much the actions that a character might do but they way they were lead to that point and the effects after it. They might not have been able to save little Sally from the fire, why not? What affect does it have on them afterwards. Are they haunted by the little girls screams. Do they dream about what they could have done and have nightmares about what they couldn't? It's not illegal but it still has a lot of bearing on the character.

I think they should still communicate to the police and security divisions though, especially if it has a bearing on the safety of others. Yes, you could do it alone, but who knows you're there if you need help? If you tell the police you could get back up, you could get fire brigade, you could get ambulances as soon as you need them rather then waiting for the worst scenario to happen and then possibly not get them in time.

[Murport]

Good points all the way around. Personally I really like when a story departs from the normal path. If I wanted to read a story about a hero, I wouldn't want the same type of reaction that I would get from every other hero based story I've ever read. I'd like to take the hero and make gumbo out of him. Put a little of this, a little of that, and put some stink on him. Blur the lines of right and wrong. Irony and sarcasm are my two closest friends.

[sagittaeri]

In terms of story-telling, making crimes "okay" for the heroes kinda removes a layer of depth from the story anyway. I prefer it when the characters struggles with morality a bit, whether if it's an internal struggle, or a problem with law enforcement, either one is fine.

However, despite having said that, we don't actually live in a fair world. Some people get away with some outrageous behaviour, and some others get punished for the tiniest things that probably isn't even their fault in the first place. So, it really depends on the story.