Character morality question

[wayrad]

Couldn't he sacrifice his master instead, and save everyone else? I don't think the master sounds very nice.

[crich70]

It could be that one of his powers is being able to travel through time (maybe not now but later) and therefore he travels back and saves his friends whom he thinks now have died.

[jasonkchapman]

I'd have to say that letting his friends die in order to save the world is actually the more selfless and heroic act. The more interesting character dissection, though, might be to have him give in, save his friends, find some other way to save the world, but at an enormous cost of lives, and have to deal with knowing the true cost of saving his friends.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by surrealmind

Ah, the false dilemma. You could always go the Jack Bauer route and have your hero try to intervene indirectly (e.g. by not using his super powers) somehow. Then, perhaps, some of the friends escape and some are killed in the rescue attempt, creating angst for the hero while providing at least a modicum of relief and a good chance to retain his powers.

That's what I was going to suggest. As a reader, if he just let his friends die ("the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one") then it will diminish the hero in my eyes because he didn't even try to save them, no matter that he might have a perfectly good reason for not doing so. It is just so antithetical to my perception of what a hero should do, that it will color my reading of the rest of the story. Having some of the friends die in the attempt is an acceptable loss because at least he didn't abandon them to their fate; he tried to change it. Future events can always change and other opportunities present themself as a solution to a problem, but if he lets his friends die without attempting to save them, he loses part of his humanity.

[Luke King]

He has to save his friends and also save the world. Maybe he loses his superpowers in saving his friends, but somehow manages to save the world without his powers.

My 2 cents worth.

[bthrowsnaill]

Does the main character understand the extent of the risk of losing his powers (and if not can he gain some insight prior to the decision)? If it's an unknown level of risk, then it would seem non-heroic to save his friends, esp. if the whole planet subsequently is destroyed. If it's a low level of risk, then maybe it could be viewed as heroic or at least loyal. But how would the friends feel knowing that they are being saved at the risk of losing all of their personal friends and loved ones? Maybe they wouldn't want to be saved under those circumstances? Some of them might be angry after being saved, even if the planet makes it.

[noothergods]

What you could do is have him save his friends and lose his powers. Then, in an effort to get them back, wind up sliding over to the villains side and the friends he saved now have to stop him, the former hero, from destroying the world.

[Joseph Mitchell]

Friends convince heroes to let them die, so they can fight on and win the war, as seen in the 80's movie 'Red Dawn'.


Superman saved the world and let Lois Lane die, then cheated to turn back time and save her.

Funny how he still managed to save the world though, despite the choice, but he's Superman, so whatever.
It was a happy ending, unlike Red Dawn.

[khalleron]

If your book is plot-driven, the hero saves his friends, then saves the world anyway, pretty predictable in my opinion.

If your book is character-driven, then it depends on who your character is what his choices would be. Is he weak of character and easily driven, and that's why the god chose him? Then he'd let his friends die, regret it, and have some kind of epiphany over it.

If the god chose him because he was the standard Noble Hero, then he'd do the standard Noble Hero thing.

Elfwreck pretty much laid out what the options are, but I'd rather read a non-standard plot with interesting characters myself.

[altworld]

If he stands there mutely without doing anything, then he isn't much of a hero and it will cause a lot of disconnect.

Question should also be, if these beings gave him the power to save the world, but wont let him save his friends, then what is the beings real motivations for giving him these powers? Something is rarely given without some type of agenda attached.

If its an impossible situation, like say the Red Dawn illustration where the protangonists would be a great danger of being killed if they tried to save the townspeople. Then use the friends to convince the hero to runaway, and avenge them.

You've wrote yourself into a corner here with a catch-22 situation, a hero though would try to save them.

[Kevin2960]

You've already made your choice, read through your post, you Don't really give him a choice, YOU seem to want him to save his friends,

The other option is bring in a way of adding a 3rd choice ???

[Metal Mick]

Hi Sl, et al,

I guess the question hinges on the forthcoming events in the story, and whether the hero's decision now makes subsequent events difficult for the reader to accept - or suspend their disbelief, as I was taught to say it. A couple of posters here have touched on that issue and to me, it is the critical one.

Since you're the writer and haven't asked for ways out of the dilemma, I won't give any, but one that is quite workable springs to mind.

A couple of writers have had their protagonist perform some quite violent events without the reader losing contact with the story - Lee Child in the Jack Reacher novels and Barry Eisler with his Rain series. Both writers have handled the motivations of their characters a little differently, and their morals made quite clear. Have you clearly defined your character's morals and motivations?

One question springs to mind though: if the "more powerful being" cannot interfere in the events on Earth and wants your protagonist acting in his stead (and is obviously directing his actions), does this not count as interference? Presumably your protagonist's powers are a subset of the MPG's?

Cheers,

[Alm Hlgh]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Ok, I've got a rather interesting question for you guys. In a story I'm working on the character has super powers which have been given to him by a more powerful being who is unable to interfere in events of Earth. So he's designated this other guy to act as a proxy for him.

Well, it comes to a point within the story that he's left with a dilemma. He's standing to the side watching his friends being lined up for execution. He wants to intervene and save his friends, but his master tells him to wait for a better time when he can save the whole world. However, if he acts now, he risks losing his powers and not being able to save others later.

So he's left with two choices. Jump in and save his friends now and gamble that he will still have his powers later on and in sufficient quantity to save his friends, or stand by and watch his friends die miserable, painful deaths in hopes of possibly saving the entire world at the cost of a few lives.

Which of these two choices would make him seem more selfless and courageous, and which would make him seem like a selfish coward? Or will neither of them do that? And if so, is this more of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation? Your thoughts are welcome.

Personally I'm not sure which scenario is better; it depends on what you (or the character is attempting to achieve). Some of the best written stories and movies allow their characters room to grow. In order to grow, one must fail miserably at something to respond to a bigger challenge later on in the story.

One of my worse habits that I'm still wrestling with as a writer is learning to allow my characters to screw up, make mistakes and grow through their failures. This sounds like it might be one of those cases. I hope this helps.