Moral questions in books

I was thinking about this for awhile, and I was wondering, does it kind of seem like entertainment in general is losing characters with moral codes? Back a hundred years ago or something, the stereotype seemed to be that the main characters were heroes with a huge sense of justice and righteousness and so therefore they were almost morally perfect. People obviously don't like to read about that kind of person ALL the TIME, especially since the majority of people out there don't have "perfect" morals. So I think over time, characters started to become more and more realistic. And that's great! But does anyone else feel like it's starting to go too far (key word: starting)?

All of this is pretty vague, and I'm kind of talking about entertainment in general. I don't mind a character who used to do things against basic values (as in, good things that most people should agree with, like selflessness, kindness, faithfulness, love, courage, wisdom, self control, justice, etc) at first, but then eventually that character will go through their character arc and learn a lesson or two. That's not only cool, I think it's a really good example to readers. But lately I feel like some characters are becoming either too morally relative. Or at least doing things against basic values is starting to be glorified.

Any thoughts? Wanna tell me I'm totally wrong? I don't mind that at all, sometimes I'm really bad at explaining things and say something that isn't right, and I'm open to changing my mind if I was wrong. But what I'm trying to say is something I've really been thinking about, at least.

i agree that it is STARTING to go too far and possibly a little boring at times and when characters are too relative i find that some people start to imagine themselves instead of the character and it sort of shifts the mood of the book kind of though not all the time ( that applies to all of this ). and im bad with words too so if this dont make sense then sorry.

Either way, antiheroes are badass. The morals aren't as important as the personality. For instance, sometimes good guys/ladies can be huge assholes, like Wolverine, or Gambit from X-Men. There are bad guys/ladies who are super likeable, like Lucifer from Supernatural, or Rick from Rick and Morty. And then, again, there is the badass antihero, guys like Spawn, Deadpool, Death stroke, Alucard, y'know.

shuriken, true true, and I love me some antiheroes, too. I think the quality I like in characters like that is their ability to "not give a f&%#." (Most of favorite characters of all time are like that.) But at least while watching them we still know that being rude to people is still, well, rude. And most of those people fight for justice. I'm a-okay with self defense. Or beating up the guy that was attacking your friend. But it goes too far when it's "cool" to be mean to people who don't deserve it, or anything along those lines, don't you think? I think being a good person in general is better than having an interesting personality.

If you've seen Sherlock, I absolutely love Sherlock's personality. But he still fought for what was right (learned to care about it more, even), and he learned how to be a friend. That made it even better. In comparison, Moriarty could never be my favorite character, simply because he was evil. But he IS one of my favorite villains ever. In watching Hunter x Hunter, my favorite characters are all "good guys." I think the Phantom Troupe and Hisoka are cool, but I just can't like them. I read Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom a few months ago (YA isn't my go-to genre usually, and while it isn't my favorite, I was pleasantly surprised), and it was basically about a band of thugs. I was drawn to it because of that, actually. I probably wouldn't have liked the book at all if the characters enjoyed killing, though. They had to kill "bad guys," sure. And only one of them killed with no remorse. While he was cool and everything, I couldn't really like him until he started to grow a conscience. He started to care about his friends, started to not like killing anymore, etc. That's when I finally felt like I could like him as a character. (All of this is different from liking a villain, of course. The eviler the better.) I don't think right and wrong are relative (I'm not talking about matters of opinion, I'm talking about not infringing upon people's freedom or life: don't murder, don't steal, don't hold slaves, treat people the way you want to be treated, don't harm yourself or others, etc), but some books and movies are starting to make it out to be.

Sorry that was long :P

Maybe it's your morals. I'm fine liking characters that are evil, and I'm fine with liking characters that are good, but I like characters that are an equal mixture of both the best! I think personality is above morals, because it's usually, although not always, in correlation with morals. Again this varies. See, what I really like, are flexible characters. That's why I like Supernatural so much, look at how the characters change. I think this should not only be based on morals, but on personality, character development. All in all, there are too many variables to discuss here.

I should also add, that I like characters who are willing to do bad for the greater good. Usually, I portray my characters as antiheroes, but they can be a little good, and a little evil!. All in all, it's certainty a food question.

Wow, that was all over the place.

I get it, it wasn't all over the place. ;) I forgot to mention that I'm in favor of doing "bad" for the sake of the greater "good" also. I think it's important to note that the ends don't always justify the means, though (but you might not agree with that, I dunno). It annoys the heck out of me when characters are willing to sacrifice the entire world for their love interest, for example. I also particularly enjoyed a moment in one of my favorite series when the king decided to shoot an annoying government official in the head in the middle of a meeting… it was necessary. :P (It was also technically lawful, since the king IS the law.)

Mixtures of both is the best, I agree, since that's how all humans are. I think I might've explained myself badly, because I don't like morally perfect characters. They're boring. I just don't like it when the entertainment is trying to say that bad actually IS good. I think the point is that people shouldn't like being evil, even if your favorite character likes being evil. I love Moriarty, but I don't want to be like him. And I don't want the show to say being like him is good (that sentence is probably the main thing I was getting at).

I also don't really think that not infringing upon people's freedom and life are specifically MY morals. Do you disagree with that standard? I think that once you infringe on someone's life, you've forfeited your rights to your freedom and/or to your life, too. That's what justifies the death penalty. Overall I'm not against what you've said, I was just trying to clarify myself.

Yeah, mixture of good and bad FTW! Also, I think that there are too many variables for that second point. Sometimes the means justify the ends, sometimes they don't, as long as you do more good than bad I really don't care. And I get how you feel when a character is willing to sacrifice the whole world for a single person. I also think it's stupid how, if the main character has a friend taken hostage by the villain, and that villain says "Drop your weapon!" that the hero does. And furthermore, why doesn't the villain kill him he inevitably does drop it.

I also think that both morally perfect characters are both, boring, and too limited in general. I think it's OK if certain characters like being evil, but only if it's done right..

Plus. I agree with you on the rights thing, but I don't think that people who infringe on others' rights are the typed of people who forfeit their own willingly. I think people are born with equal rights, but as soon as they cross certain lines, they lose either some, or asll of these rights depending on the line they crossed. But there are exceptions to this.

Yeah that's what i meant by "forfeit their own rights." If you murder someone (not just an accident, and especially if it's maligant), you have forfeited your life by default. Eye for an eye kind of deal. But that doesn't mean people can't have mercy, or that the person did something wrong will never change.

Dang this has become a little discussion on humanity. :P

Also I think we came together on common ground. Yay debate!

That's what I mean. Yeah. Variables.

Yeah variables. :P Sorry for talking past you on that

I don't mind.

In regards to the comments about doing bad for the greater good, keep in mind that 'the greater good' was Grindelwald's motto and he was the wizarding version of Hitler. I find characters with less morals to be okay if they improve. Yeah, previous protagonists were amazing, completely moral, golden superheroes, but you can't connect to that. You can't relate, and they also have no room to improve, to overcome character flaws or go through character development. They basically just remain static and boring. Imperfect characters are not only more relatable, but they are able to develop and change and be dynamic like main characters are supposed to be. If they don't become better and are basically just a bad person throughout the entire book/series, then yes, that's a bad idea, but otherwise I'd prefer a character with room to grow.

I know that, but in this case, "the greater good" means the benefit of everyone else! Y'know!

Yeah, I agree, people can say they're doing something for the greater good, but that doesn't mean the ends justify the means, or that the ends are good. And I also think a character with room to grow is ideal, as long as the book does't condone evil.