Is a lawful good “antagonist” effective?












13















In my post-apocalyptic novel, my protagonist is not necessarily "good", and although the antagonist is an honest and kind person, my protagonist perceives her as "evil". My antagonist is the leader of a group of survivors, and cares deeply for her family and group, and is extremely suspicious of my protagonist.



The way I constructed the antagonist's character (and according to the results of an alignment test I took from her point of view), she's lawful good. That aligns with how I see her, and how I'm writing her right now. I still want the reader to resent and sometimes hate her, just like my protagonist does, but I'm afraid my readers are going to start sympathizing with her when I want their loyalties to lie with my protagonist, no matter how bad she is.



Can I still make my antagonist an effective "bad guy", despite the fact that she is, truly, lawful good? Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?










share|improve this question


















  • 4





    Is there a reason you can't have an antagonist that the reader ALSO sympathizes with?

    – Onyz
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @Onyz There's no reason why I CAN'T, I just don't want my protag to become less appealing and therefore leave my reader dissatisfied. Also, slightly unrelated, I've written a short story from the POV of my antagonist, which makes her very sympathetic.

    – weakdna
    7 hours ago











  • Chiwetel Ejiofor's character in the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" is a great example of an easily-reviled antagonist that is lawful good (at least from their point of view).

    – sean
    2 hours ago











  • @weakdna You chose a dark MC and that is a risk. Drawing them so they can be appealing is the challenge.

    – Rasdashan
    1 hour ago











  • I'd argue this is a bit like Hermione Granger in the Philosopher's Stone - you sympathize heavily with her, but also understand why Ron and Harry are a little confused at the "or worse, expelled." Of course, Hermione Granger is also one of my favorite characters, even in PS, so...take from that what you will?

    – heather
    6 mins ago


















13















In my post-apocalyptic novel, my protagonist is not necessarily "good", and although the antagonist is an honest and kind person, my protagonist perceives her as "evil". My antagonist is the leader of a group of survivors, and cares deeply for her family and group, and is extremely suspicious of my protagonist.



The way I constructed the antagonist's character (and according to the results of an alignment test I took from her point of view), she's lawful good. That aligns with how I see her, and how I'm writing her right now. I still want the reader to resent and sometimes hate her, just like my protagonist does, but I'm afraid my readers are going to start sympathizing with her when I want their loyalties to lie with my protagonist, no matter how bad she is.



Can I still make my antagonist an effective "bad guy", despite the fact that she is, truly, lawful good? Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?










share|improve this question


















  • 4





    Is there a reason you can't have an antagonist that the reader ALSO sympathizes with?

    – Onyz
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @Onyz There's no reason why I CAN'T, I just don't want my protag to become less appealing and therefore leave my reader dissatisfied. Also, slightly unrelated, I've written a short story from the POV of my antagonist, which makes her very sympathetic.

    – weakdna
    7 hours ago











  • Chiwetel Ejiofor's character in the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" is a great example of an easily-reviled antagonist that is lawful good (at least from their point of view).

    – sean
    2 hours ago











  • @weakdna You chose a dark MC and that is a risk. Drawing them so they can be appealing is the challenge.

    – Rasdashan
    1 hour ago











  • I'd argue this is a bit like Hermione Granger in the Philosopher's Stone - you sympathize heavily with her, but also understand why Ron and Harry are a little confused at the "or worse, expelled." Of course, Hermione Granger is also one of my favorite characters, even in PS, so...take from that what you will?

    – heather
    6 mins ago
















13












13








13








In my post-apocalyptic novel, my protagonist is not necessarily "good", and although the antagonist is an honest and kind person, my protagonist perceives her as "evil". My antagonist is the leader of a group of survivors, and cares deeply for her family and group, and is extremely suspicious of my protagonist.



The way I constructed the antagonist's character (and according to the results of an alignment test I took from her point of view), she's lawful good. That aligns with how I see her, and how I'm writing her right now. I still want the reader to resent and sometimes hate her, just like my protagonist does, but I'm afraid my readers are going to start sympathizing with her when I want their loyalties to lie with my protagonist, no matter how bad she is.



Can I still make my antagonist an effective "bad guy", despite the fact that she is, truly, lawful good? Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?










share|improve this question














In my post-apocalyptic novel, my protagonist is not necessarily "good", and although the antagonist is an honest and kind person, my protagonist perceives her as "evil". My antagonist is the leader of a group of survivors, and cares deeply for her family and group, and is extremely suspicious of my protagonist.



The way I constructed the antagonist's character (and according to the results of an alignment test I took from her point of view), she's lawful good. That aligns with how I see her, and how I'm writing her right now. I still want the reader to resent and sometimes hate her, just like my protagonist does, but I'm afraid my readers are going to start sympathizing with her when I want their loyalties to lie with my protagonist, no matter how bad she is.



Can I still make my antagonist an effective "bad guy", despite the fact that she is, truly, lawful good? Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?







creative-writing antagonist protagonist






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 10 hours ago









weakdnaweakdna

3,16131961




3,16131961








  • 4





    Is there a reason you can't have an antagonist that the reader ALSO sympathizes with?

    – Onyz
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @Onyz There's no reason why I CAN'T, I just don't want my protag to become less appealing and therefore leave my reader dissatisfied. Also, slightly unrelated, I've written a short story from the POV of my antagonist, which makes her very sympathetic.

    – weakdna
    7 hours ago











  • Chiwetel Ejiofor's character in the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" is a great example of an easily-reviled antagonist that is lawful good (at least from their point of view).

    – sean
    2 hours ago











  • @weakdna You chose a dark MC and that is a risk. Drawing them so they can be appealing is the challenge.

    – Rasdashan
    1 hour ago











  • I'd argue this is a bit like Hermione Granger in the Philosopher's Stone - you sympathize heavily with her, but also understand why Ron and Harry are a little confused at the "or worse, expelled." Of course, Hermione Granger is also one of my favorite characters, even in PS, so...take from that what you will?

    – heather
    6 mins ago
















  • 4





    Is there a reason you can't have an antagonist that the reader ALSO sympathizes with?

    – Onyz
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @Onyz There's no reason why I CAN'T, I just don't want my protag to become less appealing and therefore leave my reader dissatisfied. Also, slightly unrelated, I've written a short story from the POV of my antagonist, which makes her very sympathetic.

    – weakdna
    7 hours ago











  • Chiwetel Ejiofor's character in the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" is a great example of an easily-reviled antagonist that is lawful good (at least from their point of view).

    – sean
    2 hours ago











  • @weakdna You chose a dark MC and that is a risk. Drawing them so they can be appealing is the challenge.

    – Rasdashan
    1 hour ago











  • I'd argue this is a bit like Hermione Granger in the Philosopher's Stone - you sympathize heavily with her, but also understand why Ron and Harry are a little confused at the "or worse, expelled." Of course, Hermione Granger is also one of my favorite characters, even in PS, so...take from that what you will?

    – heather
    6 mins ago










4




4





Is there a reason you can't have an antagonist that the reader ALSO sympathizes with?

– Onyz
8 hours ago





Is there a reason you can't have an antagonist that the reader ALSO sympathizes with?

– Onyz
8 hours ago




1




1





@Onyz There's no reason why I CAN'T, I just don't want my protag to become less appealing and therefore leave my reader dissatisfied. Also, slightly unrelated, I've written a short story from the POV of my antagonist, which makes her very sympathetic.

– weakdna
7 hours ago





@Onyz There's no reason why I CAN'T, I just don't want my protag to become less appealing and therefore leave my reader dissatisfied. Also, slightly unrelated, I've written a short story from the POV of my antagonist, which makes her very sympathetic.

– weakdna
7 hours ago













Chiwetel Ejiofor's character in the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" is a great example of an easily-reviled antagonist that is lawful good (at least from their point of view).

– sean
2 hours ago





Chiwetel Ejiofor's character in the Joss Whedon movie "Serenity" is a great example of an easily-reviled antagonist that is lawful good (at least from their point of view).

– sean
2 hours ago













@weakdna You chose a dark MC and that is a risk. Drawing them so they can be appealing is the challenge.

– Rasdashan
1 hour ago





@weakdna You chose a dark MC and that is a risk. Drawing them so they can be appealing is the challenge.

– Rasdashan
1 hour ago













I'd argue this is a bit like Hermione Granger in the Philosopher's Stone - you sympathize heavily with her, but also understand why Ron and Harry are a little confused at the "or worse, expelled." Of course, Hermione Granger is also one of my favorite characters, even in PS, so...take from that what you will?

– heather
6 mins ago







I'd argue this is a bit like Hermione Granger in the Philosopher's Stone - you sympathize heavily with her, but also understand why Ron and Harry are a little confused at the "or worse, expelled." Of course, Hermione Granger is also one of my favorite characters, even in PS, so...take from that what you will?

– heather
6 mins ago












10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















14














Antagonists are not necessarily bad guys. They prevent your protagonist from achieving her goals.



Free yourself of the labels and write your characters true to themselves. What you seem to have in your protagonist is something of an antihero in that she has killed her entire family and anyone else who ventured near enough to reach her.



The reader need not fully identify with your protag - a young girl who kills is not the most endearing sort. Show why she does it.



You might find, as I did once, that my original hero turned out to be an inadvertent and unaware villain, flipping the man he thought of as the arch villain into the hero. I stopped thinking of them as good vs evil and saw that the purported villain was striving to preserve the world from the consequences of the actions of the hero. I just considered them by their names and the plot developed itself.



Readers having sympathy for a victim of your protag’s earlier evil is not a problem. One thing I wonder, you say she thought she was alone and the last human alive. Why then would she not have felt relieved to see other humans? Was she frightened? Did she think People! I am not the last. Wait, why are they here? No, can’t let them find mom and dad. Need to kill them and run.



If she killed them to cover up her earlier crime, she might be a bit too dark to engage the reader completely. The reader might be curious regarding what other havoc young Eris will wreak, but feeling as Eris feels might be a bit of a stretch.



Let them understand why Eris hates this good woman who stands in her way but don’t expect them to detest her too. They might see her as Eris’ only hope of redemption.



If your characters are engaging enough and fully realized, the reader will probably be intrigued.






share|improve this answer































    8














    The answer to this lies in (frustratingly) another question:



    Why does your protagonist consider them "evil"?



    If you can come up with something plausible and relatable for the answer to this you might just have a shot.



    If the reason is due to a misunderstanding (or similar) on the protagonist's part (e.g. they believe the antagonist committed atrocity X when they didn't) then you can still do that so long as the reader has the same information that the protagonist does to lead them to that conclusion.



    If they really are Lawfully Good in the classical sense and if your protagonist is more likely to be the one doing classically "Evil" behaviors then it's going to be a tough sell. You might be able to play into Anti-Hero status or make them likeable through other means such as making them super-charismatic, or funny etc and use the inertia of that built up appeal to encourage the reader to side with them over the antagonist but that's difficult, readers aren't idiots and if they see a character they like acting in a way they don't agree with you risk a backlash.




    Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?




    You can lead a reader by the nose a bit into being supportive of a particular character but ultimately they are going to sympathize with the character they find most sympathetic - which might not always be what you intended. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the joy of human nature.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4





      I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

      – Brian K1LI
      7 hours ago








    • 1





      @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

      – Winterborne
      5 hours ago











    • @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

      – Brian K1LI
      4 hours ago



















    7














    As others have said, the antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be a bad guy. It's also worth mentioning however, that "bad guys" generally tend to think that what they're doing is good.



    Consider for example someone who holds order and stability to be the most important thing there is, and so acts to stop any major change from happening, whether that change would be ultimately good or bad. What they're doing is upholding the order and stability that they hold dear, and they may well think they're truly doing the best thing for the country/world/etc. But what if this means they oppose getting rid of slavery, for example, because that is also a major change?



    Consider also the ruler who is forced into a hard decision. They may be forced to choose between closing off all borders to protect their people from a plague that's ravaging the nearby countries, or sending aid to a long-time ally who has been struggling with the plague. Whichever decision they make, perfectly reasonable people can come to the conclusion that it was the wrong one.



    Real-world problems are complex, and the best writing shows this. An antagonist whose motives and reasoning you can understand and perhaps even agree with is a sign of a good writer, in my opinion.



    Some examples of this type of antagonist:



    (the list below contains spoilers, I have listed author/publisher for each entry so hopefully you can choose what you want to see)





    • N.K. Jemisin's




      The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms





    • Brandon Sanderson's




      Mistborn trilogy





    • The Konami video game




      Suikoden 2









    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















    • In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

      – Mason Wheeler
      44 mins ago











    • @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

      – Hearth
      41 mins ago



















    3














    This can be done in a number of ways, though I admit it may be difficult to make a genuinely good leader a primary antagonist.




    • Good guy is actually not so good. Your antagonist may be widely
      respected and acting selflessly for the good of the society, but
      there is a disturbing darkness in him. Think about Agent Smith,
      from the "Matrix", or High Sparrow in "Game of Thrones", or
      sheriff Will Teasle in "Rambo". In the end it is becoming clear
      that the good guy was clearly not so good.

    • Good guy is acting in a mistaken belief that protagonist is a threat
      to the society. This is particularly common in Fugitive Arc (TV
      Tropes) stories, when we see a genuinely good law enforcement officer
      as an antagonist (but not the "big bad"), and still root for our
      protagonist, who is on the wrong side of the law.

    • Comedy. Here the audience can root for the bad guys knowing that they
      are not really bad. Consider "Smokey" from "Smokey and the
      Bandit", Dean of Students Ed Rooney from "Ferris Bueller's Day
      Off" or concierge Hector from "Home alone 2".






    share|improve this answer































      3














      The classic example of an effective Lawful Good antagonist is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables. He is a good person who cares deeply about upholding the law, which brings him into conflict with the protagonist, Jean Valjean, multiple times throughout the story because Valjean is a reformed thief who had to break parole and assume a different identity in order to get a fair chance from society. Javert's main character flaw is that he (like so many other people in his society) doesn't truly believe that a person like Valjean is capable of reforming and becoming good.



      Another example can be found in Marshal Samuel Gerard from the movie The Fugitive. His job is to hunt down the titular Fugitive, convicted murderer Dr. Kimble, who escaped on the way to death row. Unlike Valjean, who was legitimately a thief, Kimble was wrongfully convicted of murder, but Gerard doesn't particularly care when Kimble protests that he didn't do it because, as the saying goes, "that's what they all say." But unlike Javert, when solid evidence comes up that Kimble is innocent, Gerard is willing to reconsider and eventually turns to helping Kimble.



      So yes, there are multiple ways to have a scenario with a Lawful Good antagonist acting against a good protagonist and still end up with a good story.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Also known as Lawful Stupid

        – SamYonnou
        7 hours ago











      • @SamYonnou Which one of them?

        – Mason Wheeler
        7 hours ago











      • Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

        – SamYonnou
        3 hours ago





















      2














      Two Lawful Good people can still end up violently opposed, they just need to have different views of reality, laws or good.



      The classic scenario would be two soldiers who are both good, kind and thoughtful people but happen to be on opposite sides of a war. They can resent and hate each other because that's easier than hating the situation or their political leaders or anything else. It gives them something tangible to fight when they can say "that's the bad guy, this person is why my life is bad".



      Your protagonist needs to have something likable about them to keep things engaged. Show the conflict from their point of view and try to bring the readers into that mindset and you can pull this off but it is tricky.






      share|improve this answer































        2














        Very few people consider themselves to be "evil."



        So, it would be very realistic to have two people who are good and even lawful oppose each other.



        Think about two such people. They each have a goal that they think will make things better (or keep them from declining). They are committed to their respective goal. They will do anything that the law and their morality allows to achieve their goal. Now consider that their goals have mutually exclusive results or have unintended consequences that interferes with the other's goal.



        They may be so invested in their own goal that they see any interference with it to be evil. Thus, you could have two good people who see each other as evil (or merely just wrong).



        Politics is a good example of this.



        Your story can only be better if both characters are good and oppose each other. If the readers sympathize with the antagonist, the protagonist's victory will be tinged with a bit of tragedy. If you really want to tug on the hear strings, in the end, let protagonist see that the antagonist is also good but must fail for what the protagonist sees as the greater good.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





















        • Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

          – Ed Grimm
          1 hour ago



















        1














        People are Complicated



        And also compartmentalized. You can find a lot of examples in history of admirable, honest people with feet of clay. One very common twist for the scenario you’re spinning is that she really does put her own group of survivors first—but at the expense of others, and that’s why the hero has to fight them. Or perhaps she’s too loyal to her family or her own circle, who aren’t as noble as she is, and isn’t willing to restrain them. Maybe she has a tragic flaw.



        Do We Need Another Hero?



        Maybe she’s not “the villain,” just the worthy opponent of the main character. The two sides might be in an irresoluble conflict that she wishes were not necessary. You might be telling the story from the villain’s point of view, or there might be no villain at all.



        It’s Not Her, it’s Them



        The hero is fighting another group of survivors. Maybe the leader is a good person, but not all her followers are, and she just doesn’t know about them, or can’t stop them.



        War! What is it Good for?



        If the antagonist turns out to be a good person who doesn’t want to hurt the protagonists, everyone could realize that and stop fighting. The plot might even be about making peace and saving as many lives as possible. That’s a great happy ending.






        share|improve this answer































          -1














          The Federal Marshall in The Fugitive (starring Harrison Ford) is an example of a lawful yet dislikable antagonist. So yes, that kind of antagonist can definitely work.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.
















          • 1





            You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

            – Rasdashan
            3 hours ago



















          -3














          what is it with these dungeon and dragon character types?



          of course it is fine.



          It all depends on what your story is.



          Remember, the antagonist doesn't have to be the bad guy... just has to be someone the protagonist has a conflict with.



          and dungeon and dragon character types is stupid even for the tween audience.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 6





            This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

            – F1Krazy
            6 hours ago






          • 2





            @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

            – SamYonnou
            3 hours ago













          • And it is ride and unkind.

            – bruglesco
            59 mins ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "166"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43428%2fis-a-lawful-good-antagonist-effective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes








          10 Answers
          10






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          14














          Antagonists are not necessarily bad guys. They prevent your protagonist from achieving her goals.



          Free yourself of the labels and write your characters true to themselves. What you seem to have in your protagonist is something of an antihero in that she has killed her entire family and anyone else who ventured near enough to reach her.



          The reader need not fully identify with your protag - a young girl who kills is not the most endearing sort. Show why she does it.



          You might find, as I did once, that my original hero turned out to be an inadvertent and unaware villain, flipping the man he thought of as the arch villain into the hero. I stopped thinking of them as good vs evil and saw that the purported villain was striving to preserve the world from the consequences of the actions of the hero. I just considered them by their names and the plot developed itself.



          Readers having sympathy for a victim of your protag’s earlier evil is not a problem. One thing I wonder, you say she thought she was alone and the last human alive. Why then would she not have felt relieved to see other humans? Was she frightened? Did she think People! I am not the last. Wait, why are they here? No, can’t let them find mom and dad. Need to kill them and run.



          If she killed them to cover up her earlier crime, she might be a bit too dark to engage the reader completely. The reader might be curious regarding what other havoc young Eris will wreak, but feeling as Eris feels might be a bit of a stretch.



          Let them understand why Eris hates this good woman who stands in her way but don’t expect them to detest her too. They might see her as Eris’ only hope of redemption.



          If your characters are engaging enough and fully realized, the reader will probably be intrigued.






          share|improve this answer




























            14














            Antagonists are not necessarily bad guys. They prevent your protagonist from achieving her goals.



            Free yourself of the labels and write your characters true to themselves. What you seem to have in your protagonist is something of an antihero in that she has killed her entire family and anyone else who ventured near enough to reach her.



            The reader need not fully identify with your protag - a young girl who kills is not the most endearing sort. Show why she does it.



            You might find, as I did once, that my original hero turned out to be an inadvertent and unaware villain, flipping the man he thought of as the arch villain into the hero. I stopped thinking of them as good vs evil and saw that the purported villain was striving to preserve the world from the consequences of the actions of the hero. I just considered them by their names and the plot developed itself.



            Readers having sympathy for a victim of your protag’s earlier evil is not a problem. One thing I wonder, you say she thought she was alone and the last human alive. Why then would she not have felt relieved to see other humans? Was she frightened? Did she think People! I am not the last. Wait, why are they here? No, can’t let them find mom and dad. Need to kill them and run.



            If she killed them to cover up her earlier crime, she might be a bit too dark to engage the reader completely. The reader might be curious regarding what other havoc young Eris will wreak, but feeling as Eris feels might be a bit of a stretch.



            Let them understand why Eris hates this good woman who stands in her way but don’t expect them to detest her too. They might see her as Eris’ only hope of redemption.



            If your characters are engaging enough and fully realized, the reader will probably be intrigued.






            share|improve this answer


























              14












              14








              14







              Antagonists are not necessarily bad guys. They prevent your protagonist from achieving her goals.



              Free yourself of the labels and write your characters true to themselves. What you seem to have in your protagonist is something of an antihero in that she has killed her entire family and anyone else who ventured near enough to reach her.



              The reader need not fully identify with your protag - a young girl who kills is not the most endearing sort. Show why she does it.



              You might find, as I did once, that my original hero turned out to be an inadvertent and unaware villain, flipping the man he thought of as the arch villain into the hero. I stopped thinking of them as good vs evil and saw that the purported villain was striving to preserve the world from the consequences of the actions of the hero. I just considered them by their names and the plot developed itself.



              Readers having sympathy for a victim of your protag’s earlier evil is not a problem. One thing I wonder, you say she thought she was alone and the last human alive. Why then would she not have felt relieved to see other humans? Was she frightened? Did she think People! I am not the last. Wait, why are they here? No, can’t let them find mom and dad. Need to kill them and run.



              If she killed them to cover up her earlier crime, she might be a bit too dark to engage the reader completely. The reader might be curious regarding what other havoc young Eris will wreak, but feeling as Eris feels might be a bit of a stretch.



              Let them understand why Eris hates this good woman who stands in her way but don’t expect them to detest her too. They might see her as Eris’ only hope of redemption.



              If your characters are engaging enough and fully realized, the reader will probably be intrigued.






              share|improve this answer













              Antagonists are not necessarily bad guys. They prevent your protagonist from achieving her goals.



              Free yourself of the labels and write your characters true to themselves. What you seem to have in your protagonist is something of an antihero in that she has killed her entire family and anyone else who ventured near enough to reach her.



              The reader need not fully identify with your protag - a young girl who kills is not the most endearing sort. Show why she does it.



              You might find, as I did once, that my original hero turned out to be an inadvertent and unaware villain, flipping the man he thought of as the arch villain into the hero. I stopped thinking of them as good vs evil and saw that the purported villain was striving to preserve the world from the consequences of the actions of the hero. I just considered them by their names and the plot developed itself.



              Readers having sympathy for a victim of your protag’s earlier evil is not a problem. One thing I wonder, you say she thought she was alone and the last human alive. Why then would she not have felt relieved to see other humans? Was she frightened? Did she think People! I am not the last. Wait, why are they here? No, can’t let them find mom and dad. Need to kill them and run.



              If she killed them to cover up her earlier crime, she might be a bit too dark to engage the reader completely. The reader might be curious regarding what other havoc young Eris will wreak, but feeling as Eris feels might be a bit of a stretch.



              Let them understand why Eris hates this good woman who stands in her way but don’t expect them to detest her too. They might see her as Eris’ only hope of redemption.



              If your characters are engaging enough and fully realized, the reader will probably be intrigued.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 9 hours ago









              RasdashanRasdashan

              7,0901046




              7,0901046























                  8














                  The answer to this lies in (frustratingly) another question:



                  Why does your protagonist consider them "evil"?



                  If you can come up with something plausible and relatable for the answer to this you might just have a shot.



                  If the reason is due to a misunderstanding (or similar) on the protagonist's part (e.g. they believe the antagonist committed atrocity X when they didn't) then you can still do that so long as the reader has the same information that the protagonist does to lead them to that conclusion.



                  If they really are Lawfully Good in the classical sense and if your protagonist is more likely to be the one doing classically "Evil" behaviors then it's going to be a tough sell. You might be able to play into Anti-Hero status or make them likeable through other means such as making them super-charismatic, or funny etc and use the inertia of that built up appeal to encourage the reader to side with them over the antagonist but that's difficult, readers aren't idiots and if they see a character they like acting in a way they don't agree with you risk a backlash.




                  Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?




                  You can lead a reader by the nose a bit into being supportive of a particular character but ultimately they are going to sympathize with the character they find most sympathetic - which might not always be what you intended. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the joy of human nature.






                  share|improve this answer



















                  • 4





                    I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

                    – Brian K1LI
                    7 hours ago








                  • 1





                    @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

                    – Winterborne
                    5 hours ago











                  • @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

                    – Brian K1LI
                    4 hours ago
















                  8














                  The answer to this lies in (frustratingly) another question:



                  Why does your protagonist consider them "evil"?



                  If you can come up with something plausible and relatable for the answer to this you might just have a shot.



                  If the reason is due to a misunderstanding (or similar) on the protagonist's part (e.g. they believe the antagonist committed atrocity X when they didn't) then you can still do that so long as the reader has the same information that the protagonist does to lead them to that conclusion.



                  If they really are Lawfully Good in the classical sense and if your protagonist is more likely to be the one doing classically "Evil" behaviors then it's going to be a tough sell. You might be able to play into Anti-Hero status or make them likeable through other means such as making them super-charismatic, or funny etc and use the inertia of that built up appeal to encourage the reader to side with them over the antagonist but that's difficult, readers aren't idiots and if they see a character they like acting in a way they don't agree with you risk a backlash.




                  Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?




                  You can lead a reader by the nose a bit into being supportive of a particular character but ultimately they are going to sympathize with the character they find most sympathetic - which might not always be what you intended. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the joy of human nature.






                  share|improve this answer



















                  • 4





                    I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

                    – Brian K1LI
                    7 hours ago








                  • 1





                    @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

                    – Winterborne
                    5 hours ago











                  • @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

                    – Brian K1LI
                    4 hours ago














                  8












                  8








                  8







                  The answer to this lies in (frustratingly) another question:



                  Why does your protagonist consider them "evil"?



                  If you can come up with something plausible and relatable for the answer to this you might just have a shot.



                  If the reason is due to a misunderstanding (or similar) on the protagonist's part (e.g. they believe the antagonist committed atrocity X when they didn't) then you can still do that so long as the reader has the same information that the protagonist does to lead them to that conclusion.



                  If they really are Lawfully Good in the classical sense and if your protagonist is more likely to be the one doing classically "Evil" behaviors then it's going to be a tough sell. You might be able to play into Anti-Hero status or make them likeable through other means such as making them super-charismatic, or funny etc and use the inertia of that built up appeal to encourage the reader to side with them over the antagonist but that's difficult, readers aren't idiots and if they see a character they like acting in a way they don't agree with you risk a backlash.




                  Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?




                  You can lead a reader by the nose a bit into being supportive of a particular character but ultimately they are going to sympathize with the character they find most sympathetic - which might not always be what you intended. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the joy of human nature.






                  share|improve this answer













                  The answer to this lies in (frustratingly) another question:



                  Why does your protagonist consider them "evil"?



                  If you can come up with something plausible and relatable for the answer to this you might just have a shot.



                  If the reason is due to a misunderstanding (or similar) on the protagonist's part (e.g. they believe the antagonist committed atrocity X when they didn't) then you can still do that so long as the reader has the same information that the protagonist does to lead them to that conclusion.



                  If they really are Lawfully Good in the classical sense and if your protagonist is more likely to be the one doing classically "Evil" behaviors then it's going to be a tough sell. You might be able to play into Anti-Hero status or make them likeable through other means such as making them super-charismatic, or funny etc and use the inertia of that built up appeal to encourage the reader to side with them over the antagonist but that's difficult, readers aren't idiots and if they see a character they like acting in a way they don't agree with you risk a backlash.




                  Can I keep my readers' loyalties with my protagonist, not my antagonist?




                  You can lead a reader by the nose a bit into being supportive of a particular character but ultimately they are going to sympathize with the character they find most sympathetic - which might not always be what you intended. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the joy of human nature.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 10 hours ago









                  motosubatsumotosubatsu

                  916110




                  916110








                  • 4





                    I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

                    – Brian K1LI
                    7 hours ago








                  • 1





                    @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

                    – Winterborne
                    5 hours ago











                  • @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

                    – Brian K1LI
                    4 hours ago














                  • 4





                    I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

                    – Brian K1LI
                    7 hours ago








                  • 1





                    @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

                    – Winterborne
                    5 hours ago











                  • @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

                    – Brian K1LI
                    4 hours ago








                  4




                  4





                  I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

                  – Brian K1LI
                  7 hours ago







                  I witnessed a real life example that may be useful. Groups formed to receive aid that was being distributed in the wake of a severe hurricane. Some groups simply amassed everything they could get their hands on, while other groups gathered only what they could use in a foreseeable future. My interactions revealed that the two groups were motivated by competing sets of fears. The "take all" group feared that there would be no more aid coming. The "share all" group feared that failing to share would create desperation and unrest that would threaten their security. Was either group evil?

                  – Brian K1LI
                  7 hours ago






                  1




                  1





                  @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

                  – Winterborne
                  5 hours ago





                  @BrianK1LI If we're using the classical DnD "Good" and "Evil" definitions as OP seems to do, then the group that hoarded the supplies is clearly evil. They acted in a way that created a shortage of critical supplies for personal benefit. By contrast, the group that did not hoard supplies opted to risk their own supplies running out to prevent general unrest in the entire refugee population. The reasoning used to justify their actions is largely irrelevant.

                  – Winterborne
                  5 hours ago













                  @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

                  – Brian K1LI
                  4 hours ago





                  @Winterborne Therein lies a primary value of fiction as a genre: to explore what motivates human actions in an effort to better understand them.

                  – Brian K1LI
                  4 hours ago











                  7














                  As others have said, the antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be a bad guy. It's also worth mentioning however, that "bad guys" generally tend to think that what they're doing is good.



                  Consider for example someone who holds order and stability to be the most important thing there is, and so acts to stop any major change from happening, whether that change would be ultimately good or bad. What they're doing is upholding the order and stability that they hold dear, and they may well think they're truly doing the best thing for the country/world/etc. But what if this means they oppose getting rid of slavery, for example, because that is also a major change?



                  Consider also the ruler who is forced into a hard decision. They may be forced to choose between closing off all borders to protect their people from a plague that's ravaging the nearby countries, or sending aid to a long-time ally who has been struggling with the plague. Whichever decision they make, perfectly reasonable people can come to the conclusion that it was the wrong one.



                  Real-world problems are complex, and the best writing shows this. An antagonist whose motives and reasoning you can understand and perhaps even agree with is a sign of a good writer, in my opinion.



                  Some examples of this type of antagonist:



                  (the list below contains spoilers, I have listed author/publisher for each entry so hopefully you can choose what you want to see)





                  • N.K. Jemisin's




                    The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms





                  • Brandon Sanderson's




                    Mistborn trilogy





                  • The Konami video game




                    Suikoden 2









                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                  • In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

                    – Mason Wheeler
                    44 mins ago











                  • @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

                    – Hearth
                    41 mins ago
















                  7














                  As others have said, the antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be a bad guy. It's also worth mentioning however, that "bad guys" generally tend to think that what they're doing is good.



                  Consider for example someone who holds order and stability to be the most important thing there is, and so acts to stop any major change from happening, whether that change would be ultimately good or bad. What they're doing is upholding the order and stability that they hold dear, and they may well think they're truly doing the best thing for the country/world/etc. But what if this means they oppose getting rid of slavery, for example, because that is also a major change?



                  Consider also the ruler who is forced into a hard decision. They may be forced to choose between closing off all borders to protect their people from a plague that's ravaging the nearby countries, or sending aid to a long-time ally who has been struggling with the plague. Whichever decision they make, perfectly reasonable people can come to the conclusion that it was the wrong one.



                  Real-world problems are complex, and the best writing shows this. An antagonist whose motives and reasoning you can understand and perhaps even agree with is a sign of a good writer, in my opinion.



                  Some examples of this type of antagonist:



                  (the list below contains spoilers, I have listed author/publisher for each entry so hopefully you can choose what you want to see)





                  • N.K. Jemisin's




                    The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms





                  • Brandon Sanderson's




                    Mistborn trilogy





                  • The Konami video game




                    Suikoden 2









                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                  • In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

                    – Mason Wheeler
                    44 mins ago











                  • @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

                    – Hearth
                    41 mins ago














                  7












                  7








                  7







                  As others have said, the antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be a bad guy. It's also worth mentioning however, that "bad guys" generally tend to think that what they're doing is good.



                  Consider for example someone who holds order and stability to be the most important thing there is, and so acts to stop any major change from happening, whether that change would be ultimately good or bad. What they're doing is upholding the order and stability that they hold dear, and they may well think they're truly doing the best thing for the country/world/etc. But what if this means they oppose getting rid of slavery, for example, because that is also a major change?



                  Consider also the ruler who is forced into a hard decision. They may be forced to choose between closing off all borders to protect their people from a plague that's ravaging the nearby countries, or sending aid to a long-time ally who has been struggling with the plague. Whichever decision they make, perfectly reasonable people can come to the conclusion that it was the wrong one.



                  Real-world problems are complex, and the best writing shows this. An antagonist whose motives and reasoning you can understand and perhaps even agree with is a sign of a good writer, in my opinion.



                  Some examples of this type of antagonist:



                  (the list below contains spoilers, I have listed author/publisher for each entry so hopefully you can choose what you want to see)





                  • N.K. Jemisin's




                    The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms





                  • Brandon Sanderson's




                    Mistborn trilogy





                  • The Konami video game




                    Suikoden 2









                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  As others have said, the antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be a bad guy. It's also worth mentioning however, that "bad guys" generally tend to think that what they're doing is good.



                  Consider for example someone who holds order and stability to be the most important thing there is, and so acts to stop any major change from happening, whether that change would be ultimately good or bad. What they're doing is upholding the order and stability that they hold dear, and they may well think they're truly doing the best thing for the country/world/etc. But what if this means they oppose getting rid of slavery, for example, because that is also a major change?



                  Consider also the ruler who is forced into a hard decision. They may be forced to choose between closing off all borders to protect their people from a plague that's ravaging the nearby countries, or sending aid to a long-time ally who has been struggling with the plague. Whichever decision they make, perfectly reasonable people can come to the conclusion that it was the wrong one.



                  Real-world problems are complex, and the best writing shows this. An antagonist whose motives and reasoning you can understand and perhaps even agree with is a sign of a good writer, in my opinion.



                  Some examples of this type of antagonist:



                  (the list below contains spoilers, I have listed author/publisher for each entry so hopefully you can choose what you want to see)





                  • N.K. Jemisin's




                    The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms





                  • Brandon Sanderson's




                    Mistborn trilogy





                  • The Konami video game




                    Suikoden 2










                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 40 mins ago





















                  New contributor




                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 7 hours ago









                  HearthHearth

                  1713




                  1713




                  New contributor




                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Hearth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.













                  • In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

                    – Mason Wheeler
                    44 mins ago











                  • @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

                    – Hearth
                    41 mins ago



















                  • In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

                    – Mason Wheeler
                    44 mins ago











                  • @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

                    – Hearth
                    41 mins ago

















                  In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

                  – Mason Wheeler
                  44 mins ago





                  In the Brandon Sanderson example, you note "first book of the series only," which is technically true--this is the point when that particular character serves as the antagonist--but the really interesting part here is that it's not until the third book that the characters find out what his deeper purpose was.

                  – Mason Wheeler
                  44 mins ago













                  @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

                  – Hearth
                  41 mins ago





                  @MasonWheeler Hmm, good point. I'll change that.

                  – Hearth
                  41 mins ago











                  3














                  This can be done in a number of ways, though I admit it may be difficult to make a genuinely good leader a primary antagonist.




                  • Good guy is actually not so good. Your antagonist may be widely
                    respected and acting selflessly for the good of the society, but
                    there is a disturbing darkness in him. Think about Agent Smith,
                    from the "Matrix", or High Sparrow in "Game of Thrones", or
                    sheriff Will Teasle in "Rambo". In the end it is becoming clear
                    that the good guy was clearly not so good.

                  • Good guy is acting in a mistaken belief that protagonist is a threat
                    to the society. This is particularly common in Fugitive Arc (TV
                    Tropes) stories, when we see a genuinely good law enforcement officer
                    as an antagonist (but not the "big bad"), and still root for our
                    protagonist, who is on the wrong side of the law.

                  • Comedy. Here the audience can root for the bad guys knowing that they
                    are not really bad. Consider "Smokey" from "Smokey and the
                    Bandit", Dean of Students Ed Rooney from "Ferris Bueller's Day
                    Off" or concierge Hector from "Home alone 2".






                  share|improve this answer




























                    3














                    This can be done in a number of ways, though I admit it may be difficult to make a genuinely good leader a primary antagonist.




                    • Good guy is actually not so good. Your antagonist may be widely
                      respected and acting selflessly for the good of the society, but
                      there is a disturbing darkness in him. Think about Agent Smith,
                      from the "Matrix", or High Sparrow in "Game of Thrones", or
                      sheriff Will Teasle in "Rambo". In the end it is becoming clear
                      that the good guy was clearly not so good.

                    • Good guy is acting in a mistaken belief that protagonist is a threat
                      to the society. This is particularly common in Fugitive Arc (TV
                      Tropes) stories, when we see a genuinely good law enforcement officer
                      as an antagonist (but not the "big bad"), and still root for our
                      protagonist, who is on the wrong side of the law.

                    • Comedy. Here the audience can root for the bad guys knowing that they
                      are not really bad. Consider "Smokey" from "Smokey and the
                      Bandit", Dean of Students Ed Rooney from "Ferris Bueller's Day
                      Off" or concierge Hector from "Home alone 2".






                    share|improve this answer


























                      3












                      3








                      3







                      This can be done in a number of ways, though I admit it may be difficult to make a genuinely good leader a primary antagonist.




                      • Good guy is actually not so good. Your antagonist may be widely
                        respected and acting selflessly for the good of the society, but
                        there is a disturbing darkness in him. Think about Agent Smith,
                        from the "Matrix", or High Sparrow in "Game of Thrones", or
                        sheriff Will Teasle in "Rambo". In the end it is becoming clear
                        that the good guy was clearly not so good.

                      • Good guy is acting in a mistaken belief that protagonist is a threat
                        to the society. This is particularly common in Fugitive Arc (TV
                        Tropes) stories, when we see a genuinely good law enforcement officer
                        as an antagonist (but not the "big bad"), and still root for our
                        protagonist, who is on the wrong side of the law.

                      • Comedy. Here the audience can root for the bad guys knowing that they
                        are not really bad. Consider "Smokey" from "Smokey and the
                        Bandit", Dean of Students Ed Rooney from "Ferris Bueller's Day
                        Off" or concierge Hector from "Home alone 2".






                      share|improve this answer













                      This can be done in a number of ways, though I admit it may be difficult to make a genuinely good leader a primary antagonist.




                      • Good guy is actually not so good. Your antagonist may be widely
                        respected and acting selflessly for the good of the society, but
                        there is a disturbing darkness in him. Think about Agent Smith,
                        from the "Matrix", or High Sparrow in "Game of Thrones", or
                        sheriff Will Teasle in "Rambo". In the end it is becoming clear
                        that the good guy was clearly not so good.

                      • Good guy is acting in a mistaken belief that protagonist is a threat
                        to the society. This is particularly common in Fugitive Arc (TV
                        Tropes) stories, when we see a genuinely good law enforcement officer
                        as an antagonist (but not the "big bad"), and still root for our
                        protagonist, who is on the wrong side of the law.

                      • Comedy. Here the audience can root for the bad guys knowing that they
                        are not really bad. Consider "Smokey" from "Smokey and the
                        Bandit", Dean of Students Ed Rooney from "Ferris Bueller's Day
                        Off" or concierge Hector from "Home alone 2".







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 8 hours ago









                      AlexanderAlexander

                      3,450412




                      3,450412























                          3














                          The classic example of an effective Lawful Good antagonist is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables. He is a good person who cares deeply about upholding the law, which brings him into conflict with the protagonist, Jean Valjean, multiple times throughout the story because Valjean is a reformed thief who had to break parole and assume a different identity in order to get a fair chance from society. Javert's main character flaw is that he (like so many other people in his society) doesn't truly believe that a person like Valjean is capable of reforming and becoming good.



                          Another example can be found in Marshal Samuel Gerard from the movie The Fugitive. His job is to hunt down the titular Fugitive, convicted murderer Dr. Kimble, who escaped on the way to death row. Unlike Valjean, who was legitimately a thief, Kimble was wrongfully convicted of murder, but Gerard doesn't particularly care when Kimble protests that he didn't do it because, as the saying goes, "that's what they all say." But unlike Javert, when solid evidence comes up that Kimble is innocent, Gerard is willing to reconsider and eventually turns to helping Kimble.



                          So yes, there are multiple ways to have a scenario with a Lawful Good antagonist acting against a good protagonist and still end up with a good story.






                          share|improve this answer



















                          • 1





                            Also known as Lawful Stupid

                            – SamYonnou
                            7 hours ago











                          • @SamYonnou Which one of them?

                            – Mason Wheeler
                            7 hours ago











                          • Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

                            – SamYonnou
                            3 hours ago


















                          3














                          The classic example of an effective Lawful Good antagonist is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables. He is a good person who cares deeply about upholding the law, which brings him into conflict with the protagonist, Jean Valjean, multiple times throughout the story because Valjean is a reformed thief who had to break parole and assume a different identity in order to get a fair chance from society. Javert's main character flaw is that he (like so many other people in his society) doesn't truly believe that a person like Valjean is capable of reforming and becoming good.



                          Another example can be found in Marshal Samuel Gerard from the movie The Fugitive. His job is to hunt down the titular Fugitive, convicted murderer Dr. Kimble, who escaped on the way to death row. Unlike Valjean, who was legitimately a thief, Kimble was wrongfully convicted of murder, but Gerard doesn't particularly care when Kimble protests that he didn't do it because, as the saying goes, "that's what they all say." But unlike Javert, when solid evidence comes up that Kimble is innocent, Gerard is willing to reconsider and eventually turns to helping Kimble.



                          So yes, there are multiple ways to have a scenario with a Lawful Good antagonist acting against a good protagonist and still end up with a good story.






                          share|improve this answer



















                          • 1





                            Also known as Lawful Stupid

                            – SamYonnou
                            7 hours ago











                          • @SamYonnou Which one of them?

                            – Mason Wheeler
                            7 hours ago











                          • Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

                            – SamYonnou
                            3 hours ago
















                          3












                          3








                          3







                          The classic example of an effective Lawful Good antagonist is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables. He is a good person who cares deeply about upholding the law, which brings him into conflict with the protagonist, Jean Valjean, multiple times throughout the story because Valjean is a reformed thief who had to break parole and assume a different identity in order to get a fair chance from society. Javert's main character flaw is that he (like so many other people in his society) doesn't truly believe that a person like Valjean is capable of reforming and becoming good.



                          Another example can be found in Marshal Samuel Gerard from the movie The Fugitive. His job is to hunt down the titular Fugitive, convicted murderer Dr. Kimble, who escaped on the way to death row. Unlike Valjean, who was legitimately a thief, Kimble was wrongfully convicted of murder, but Gerard doesn't particularly care when Kimble protests that he didn't do it because, as the saying goes, "that's what they all say." But unlike Javert, when solid evidence comes up that Kimble is innocent, Gerard is willing to reconsider and eventually turns to helping Kimble.



                          So yes, there are multiple ways to have a scenario with a Lawful Good antagonist acting against a good protagonist and still end up with a good story.






                          share|improve this answer













                          The classic example of an effective Lawful Good antagonist is Inspector Javert, from Les Misérables. He is a good person who cares deeply about upholding the law, which brings him into conflict with the protagonist, Jean Valjean, multiple times throughout the story because Valjean is a reformed thief who had to break parole and assume a different identity in order to get a fair chance from society. Javert's main character flaw is that he (like so many other people in his society) doesn't truly believe that a person like Valjean is capable of reforming and becoming good.



                          Another example can be found in Marshal Samuel Gerard from the movie The Fugitive. His job is to hunt down the titular Fugitive, convicted murderer Dr. Kimble, who escaped on the way to death row. Unlike Valjean, who was legitimately a thief, Kimble was wrongfully convicted of murder, but Gerard doesn't particularly care when Kimble protests that he didn't do it because, as the saying goes, "that's what they all say." But unlike Javert, when solid evidence comes up that Kimble is innocent, Gerard is willing to reconsider and eventually turns to helping Kimble.



                          So yes, there are multiple ways to have a scenario with a Lawful Good antagonist acting against a good protagonist and still end up with a good story.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 8 hours ago









                          Mason WheelerMason Wheeler

                          868510




                          868510








                          • 1





                            Also known as Lawful Stupid

                            – SamYonnou
                            7 hours ago











                          • @SamYonnou Which one of them?

                            – Mason Wheeler
                            7 hours ago











                          • Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

                            – SamYonnou
                            3 hours ago
















                          • 1





                            Also known as Lawful Stupid

                            – SamYonnou
                            7 hours ago











                          • @SamYonnou Which one of them?

                            – Mason Wheeler
                            7 hours ago











                          • Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

                            – SamYonnou
                            3 hours ago










                          1




                          1





                          Also known as Lawful Stupid

                          – SamYonnou
                          7 hours ago





                          Also known as Lawful Stupid

                          – SamYonnou
                          7 hours ago













                          @SamYonnou Which one of them?

                          – Mason Wheeler
                          7 hours ago





                          @SamYonnou Which one of them?

                          – Mason Wheeler
                          7 hours ago













                          Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

                          – SamYonnou
                          3 hours ago







                          Javert. From TV Tropes: "[Javert] is rapidly approaching the embodiment of Lawful Stupid by story's end. Once a criminal, always a criminal is his mantra. He attempts to arrest the highly successful and well-loved mayor of a town who was running a factory explicitly for people who couldn't afford to live otherwise (all-around hero Jean Valjean) for the heinous crime of a parole violation years previous..."

                          – SamYonnou
                          3 hours ago













                          2














                          Two Lawful Good people can still end up violently opposed, they just need to have different views of reality, laws or good.



                          The classic scenario would be two soldiers who are both good, kind and thoughtful people but happen to be on opposite sides of a war. They can resent and hate each other because that's easier than hating the situation or their political leaders or anything else. It gives them something tangible to fight when they can say "that's the bad guy, this person is why my life is bad".



                          Your protagonist needs to have something likable about them to keep things engaged. Show the conflict from their point of view and try to bring the readers into that mindset and you can pull this off but it is tricky.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            2














                            Two Lawful Good people can still end up violently opposed, they just need to have different views of reality, laws or good.



                            The classic scenario would be two soldiers who are both good, kind and thoughtful people but happen to be on opposite sides of a war. They can resent and hate each other because that's easier than hating the situation or their political leaders or anything else. It gives them something tangible to fight when they can say "that's the bad guy, this person is why my life is bad".



                            Your protagonist needs to have something likable about them to keep things engaged. Show the conflict from their point of view and try to bring the readers into that mindset and you can pull this off but it is tricky.






                            share|improve this answer


























                              2












                              2








                              2







                              Two Lawful Good people can still end up violently opposed, they just need to have different views of reality, laws or good.



                              The classic scenario would be two soldiers who are both good, kind and thoughtful people but happen to be on opposite sides of a war. They can resent and hate each other because that's easier than hating the situation or their political leaders or anything else. It gives them something tangible to fight when they can say "that's the bad guy, this person is why my life is bad".



                              Your protagonist needs to have something likable about them to keep things engaged. Show the conflict from their point of view and try to bring the readers into that mindset and you can pull this off but it is tricky.






                              share|improve this answer













                              Two Lawful Good people can still end up violently opposed, they just need to have different views of reality, laws or good.



                              The classic scenario would be two soldiers who are both good, kind and thoughtful people but happen to be on opposite sides of a war. They can resent and hate each other because that's easier than hating the situation or their political leaders or anything else. It gives them something tangible to fight when they can say "that's the bad guy, this person is why my life is bad".



                              Your protagonist needs to have something likable about them to keep things engaged. Show the conflict from their point of view and try to bring the readers into that mindset and you can pull this off but it is tricky.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 8 hours ago









                              Tim BTim B

                              64147




                              64147























                                  2














                                  Very few people consider themselves to be "evil."



                                  So, it would be very realistic to have two people who are good and even lawful oppose each other.



                                  Think about two such people. They each have a goal that they think will make things better (or keep them from declining). They are committed to their respective goal. They will do anything that the law and their morality allows to achieve their goal. Now consider that their goals have mutually exclusive results or have unintended consequences that interferes with the other's goal.



                                  They may be so invested in their own goal that they see any interference with it to be evil. Thus, you could have two good people who see each other as evil (or merely just wrong).



                                  Politics is a good example of this.



                                  Your story can only be better if both characters are good and oppose each other. If the readers sympathize with the antagonist, the protagonist's victory will be tinged with a bit of tragedy. If you really want to tug on the hear strings, in the end, let protagonist see that the antagonist is also good but must fail for what the protagonist sees as the greater good.






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                  • Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

                                    – Ed Grimm
                                    1 hour ago
















                                  2














                                  Very few people consider themselves to be "evil."



                                  So, it would be very realistic to have two people who are good and even lawful oppose each other.



                                  Think about two such people. They each have a goal that they think will make things better (or keep them from declining). They are committed to their respective goal. They will do anything that the law and their morality allows to achieve their goal. Now consider that their goals have mutually exclusive results or have unintended consequences that interferes with the other's goal.



                                  They may be so invested in their own goal that they see any interference with it to be evil. Thus, you could have two good people who see each other as evil (or merely just wrong).



                                  Politics is a good example of this.



                                  Your story can only be better if both characters are good and oppose each other. If the readers sympathize with the antagonist, the protagonist's victory will be tinged with a bit of tragedy. If you really want to tug on the hear strings, in the end, let protagonist see that the antagonist is also good but must fail for what the protagonist sees as the greater good.






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                  • Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

                                    – Ed Grimm
                                    1 hour ago














                                  2












                                  2








                                  2







                                  Very few people consider themselves to be "evil."



                                  So, it would be very realistic to have two people who are good and even lawful oppose each other.



                                  Think about two such people. They each have a goal that they think will make things better (or keep them from declining). They are committed to their respective goal. They will do anything that the law and their morality allows to achieve their goal. Now consider that their goals have mutually exclusive results or have unintended consequences that interferes with the other's goal.



                                  They may be so invested in their own goal that they see any interference with it to be evil. Thus, you could have two good people who see each other as evil (or merely just wrong).



                                  Politics is a good example of this.



                                  Your story can only be better if both characters are good and oppose each other. If the readers sympathize with the antagonist, the protagonist's victory will be tinged with a bit of tragedy. If you really want to tug on the hear strings, in the end, let protagonist see that the antagonist is also good but must fail for what the protagonist sees as the greater good.






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                  Very few people consider themselves to be "evil."



                                  So, it would be very realistic to have two people who are good and even lawful oppose each other.



                                  Think about two such people. They each have a goal that they think will make things better (or keep them from declining). They are committed to their respective goal. They will do anything that the law and their morality allows to achieve their goal. Now consider that their goals have mutually exclusive results or have unintended consequences that interferes with the other's goal.



                                  They may be so invested in their own goal that they see any interference with it to be evil. Thus, you could have two good people who see each other as evil (or merely just wrong).



                                  Politics is a good example of this.



                                  Your story can only be better if both characters are good and oppose each other. If the readers sympathize with the antagonist, the protagonist's victory will be tinged with a bit of tragedy. If you really want to tug on the hear strings, in the end, let protagonist see that the antagonist is also good but must fail for what the protagonist sees as the greater good.







                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer






                                  New contributor




                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                  answered 3 hours ago









                                  ShadoCatShadoCat

                                  1313




                                  1313




                                  New contributor




                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                  New contributor





                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                  ShadoCat is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.













                                  • Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

                                    – Ed Grimm
                                    1 hour ago



















                                  • Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

                                    – Ed Grimm
                                    1 hour ago

















                                  Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

                                  – Ed Grimm
                                  1 hour ago





                                  Most of the people I've known who consider themselves to be evil would be in my top 100 list of good people I've met if I were to have such a list. They understood they didn't know enough about other people's situations to judge them, so didn't even consider judging others. In such a vacuum of comparisons, it's easy to see how onesself falls short of the ideals one aspires to.

                                  – Ed Grimm
                                  1 hour ago











                                  1














                                  People are Complicated



                                  And also compartmentalized. You can find a lot of examples in history of admirable, honest people with feet of clay. One very common twist for the scenario you’re spinning is that she really does put her own group of survivors first—but at the expense of others, and that’s why the hero has to fight them. Or perhaps she’s too loyal to her family or her own circle, who aren’t as noble as she is, and isn’t willing to restrain them. Maybe she has a tragic flaw.



                                  Do We Need Another Hero?



                                  Maybe she’s not “the villain,” just the worthy opponent of the main character. The two sides might be in an irresoluble conflict that she wishes were not necessary. You might be telling the story from the villain’s point of view, or there might be no villain at all.



                                  It’s Not Her, it’s Them



                                  The hero is fighting another group of survivors. Maybe the leader is a good person, but not all her followers are, and she just doesn’t know about them, or can’t stop them.



                                  War! What is it Good for?



                                  If the antagonist turns out to be a good person who doesn’t want to hurt the protagonists, everyone could realize that and stop fighting. The plot might even be about making peace and saving as many lives as possible. That’s a great happy ending.






                                  share|improve this answer




























                                    1














                                    People are Complicated



                                    And also compartmentalized. You can find a lot of examples in history of admirable, honest people with feet of clay. One very common twist for the scenario you’re spinning is that she really does put her own group of survivors first—but at the expense of others, and that’s why the hero has to fight them. Or perhaps she’s too loyal to her family or her own circle, who aren’t as noble as she is, and isn’t willing to restrain them. Maybe she has a tragic flaw.



                                    Do We Need Another Hero?



                                    Maybe she’s not “the villain,” just the worthy opponent of the main character. The two sides might be in an irresoluble conflict that she wishes were not necessary. You might be telling the story from the villain’s point of view, or there might be no villain at all.



                                    It’s Not Her, it’s Them



                                    The hero is fighting another group of survivors. Maybe the leader is a good person, but not all her followers are, and she just doesn’t know about them, or can’t stop them.



                                    War! What is it Good for?



                                    If the antagonist turns out to be a good person who doesn’t want to hurt the protagonists, everyone could realize that and stop fighting. The plot might even be about making peace and saving as many lives as possible. That’s a great happy ending.






                                    share|improve this answer


























                                      1












                                      1








                                      1







                                      People are Complicated



                                      And also compartmentalized. You can find a lot of examples in history of admirable, honest people with feet of clay. One very common twist for the scenario you’re spinning is that she really does put her own group of survivors first—but at the expense of others, and that’s why the hero has to fight them. Or perhaps she’s too loyal to her family or her own circle, who aren’t as noble as she is, and isn’t willing to restrain them. Maybe she has a tragic flaw.



                                      Do We Need Another Hero?



                                      Maybe she’s not “the villain,” just the worthy opponent of the main character. The two sides might be in an irresoluble conflict that she wishes were not necessary. You might be telling the story from the villain’s point of view, or there might be no villain at all.



                                      It’s Not Her, it’s Them



                                      The hero is fighting another group of survivors. Maybe the leader is a good person, but not all her followers are, and she just doesn’t know about them, or can’t stop them.



                                      War! What is it Good for?



                                      If the antagonist turns out to be a good person who doesn’t want to hurt the protagonists, everyone could realize that and stop fighting. The plot might even be about making peace and saving as many lives as possible. That’s a great happy ending.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      People are Complicated



                                      And also compartmentalized. You can find a lot of examples in history of admirable, honest people with feet of clay. One very common twist for the scenario you’re spinning is that she really does put her own group of survivors first—but at the expense of others, and that’s why the hero has to fight them. Or perhaps she’s too loyal to her family or her own circle, who aren’t as noble as she is, and isn’t willing to restrain them. Maybe she has a tragic flaw.



                                      Do We Need Another Hero?



                                      Maybe she’s not “the villain,” just the worthy opponent of the main character. The two sides might be in an irresoluble conflict that she wishes were not necessary. You might be telling the story from the villain’s point of view, or there might be no villain at all.



                                      It’s Not Her, it’s Them



                                      The hero is fighting another group of survivors. Maybe the leader is a good person, but not all her followers are, and she just doesn’t know about them, or can’t stop them.



                                      War! What is it Good for?



                                      If the antagonist turns out to be a good person who doesn’t want to hurt the protagonists, everyone could realize that and stop fighting. The plot might even be about making peace and saving as many lives as possible. That’s a great happy ending.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 6 hours ago









                                      DavislorDavislor

                                      39115




                                      39115























                                          -1














                                          The Federal Marshall in The Fugitive (starring Harrison Ford) is an example of a lawful yet dislikable antagonist. So yes, that kind of antagonist can definitely work.






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          • 1





                                            You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

                                            – Rasdashan
                                            3 hours ago
















                                          -1














                                          The Federal Marshall in The Fugitive (starring Harrison Ford) is an example of a lawful yet dislikable antagonist. So yes, that kind of antagonist can definitely work.






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          • 1





                                            You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

                                            – Rasdashan
                                            3 hours ago














                                          -1












                                          -1








                                          -1







                                          The Federal Marshall in The Fugitive (starring Harrison Ford) is an example of a lawful yet dislikable antagonist. So yes, that kind of antagonist can definitely work.






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          The Federal Marshall in The Fugitive (starring Harrison Ford) is an example of a lawful yet dislikable antagonist. So yes, that kind of antagonist can definitely work.







                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited 3 hours ago









                                          F1Krazy

                                          4,29211436




                                          4,29211436






                                          New contributor




                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                          answered 4 hours ago









                                          Daniel WilsonDaniel Wilson

                                          1




                                          1




                                          New contributor




                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                          New contributor





                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                          Daniel Wilson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.








                                          • 1





                                            You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

                                            – Rasdashan
                                            3 hours ago














                                          • 1





                                            You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

                                            – Rasdashan
                                            3 hours ago








                                          1




                                          1





                                          You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

                                          – Rasdashan
                                          3 hours ago





                                          You might want to expand on your point here. That character was mentioned by another user.

                                          – Rasdashan
                                          3 hours ago











                                          -3














                                          what is it with these dungeon and dragon character types?



                                          of course it is fine.



                                          It all depends on what your story is.



                                          Remember, the antagonist doesn't have to be the bad guy... just has to be someone the protagonist has a conflict with.



                                          and dungeon and dragon character types is stupid even for the tween audience.






                                          share|improve this answer





















                                          • 6





                                            This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

                                            – F1Krazy
                                            6 hours ago






                                          • 2





                                            @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

                                            – SamYonnou
                                            3 hours ago













                                          • And it is ride and unkind.

                                            – bruglesco
                                            59 mins ago
















                                          -3














                                          what is it with these dungeon and dragon character types?



                                          of course it is fine.



                                          It all depends on what your story is.



                                          Remember, the antagonist doesn't have to be the bad guy... just has to be someone the protagonist has a conflict with.



                                          and dungeon and dragon character types is stupid even for the tween audience.






                                          share|improve this answer





















                                          • 6





                                            This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

                                            – F1Krazy
                                            6 hours ago






                                          • 2





                                            @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

                                            – SamYonnou
                                            3 hours ago













                                          • And it is ride and unkind.

                                            – bruglesco
                                            59 mins ago














                                          -3












                                          -3








                                          -3







                                          what is it with these dungeon and dragon character types?



                                          of course it is fine.



                                          It all depends on what your story is.



                                          Remember, the antagonist doesn't have to be the bad guy... just has to be someone the protagonist has a conflict with.



                                          and dungeon and dragon character types is stupid even for the tween audience.






                                          share|improve this answer















                                          what is it with these dungeon and dragon character types?



                                          of course it is fine.



                                          It all depends on what your story is.



                                          Remember, the antagonist doesn't have to be the bad guy... just has to be someone the protagonist has a conflict with.



                                          and dungeon and dragon character types is stupid even for the tween audience.







                                          share|improve this answer














                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited 8 hours ago

























                                          answered 8 hours ago









                                          ashleyleeashleylee

                                          7108




                                          7108








                                          • 6





                                            This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

                                            – F1Krazy
                                            6 hours ago






                                          • 2





                                            @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

                                            – SamYonnou
                                            3 hours ago













                                          • And it is ride and unkind.

                                            – bruglesco
                                            59 mins ago














                                          • 6





                                            This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

                                            – F1Krazy
                                            6 hours ago






                                          • 2





                                            @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

                                            – SamYonnou
                                            3 hours ago













                                          • And it is ride and unkind.

                                            – bruglesco
                                            59 mins ago








                                          6




                                          6





                                          This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

                                          – F1Krazy
                                          6 hours ago





                                          This has ended up in the "low quality" queue. I think it's fine - you've pointed out that antagonists don't have to be evil - but your opinion on D&D character types isn't really relevant and I'm guessing it's distracting people from what you're actually trying to say.

                                          – F1Krazy
                                          6 hours ago




                                          2




                                          2





                                          @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

                                          – SamYonnou
                                          3 hours ago







                                          @F1Krazy Especially since 80% of tabletop RPG players are 25 or older according to a reddit survey, and OP is claiming they are "tweens"

                                          – SamYonnou
                                          3 hours ago















                                          And it is ride and unkind.

                                          – bruglesco
                                          59 mins ago





                                          And it is ride and unkind.

                                          – bruglesco
                                          59 mins ago


















                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43428%2fis-a-lawful-good-antagonist-effective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          How to label and detect the document text images

                                          Vallis Paradisi

                                          Tabula Rosettana