Character morality question

Steven Lake · 12-28-2010, 08:10 PM

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.

wvcherrybomb · 12-28-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

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.

Hmmmm, you sure are torturing yourself.

I'm not a writer but, as a reader, I would not like it at all if he let his friends die like that when there was a possibility to save them AND retain powers. Just sayin...

Notre Dame · 12-28-2010, 09:23 PM

Steven, Cherrybomb is right. US audiences would like to think they could take the risk and still battle through to save the world. Most movies like that are based on long shots. And the audience loves it if the hero triumphs AFTER having had the dilemma, and sweated over it, but took the chance and put his friends first, because that's how they would subconsciosuly like it to be in real life (would that it were). And of course, all this makes it end on an upper, not a downer.

http://www.chrisscottwilson.co.uk

Timoleon · 12-28-2010, 09:53 PM

Sound like something Kant would have fun with.

Elfwreck · 12-28-2010, 10:53 PM

Depends on what kind of story you want to tell. If he jumps in and saves his friends, and retains his powers, he is A Noble Hero, and the story fits the standard Heroic Quandary issues. (You just ask yourself, "what would Batman do?" and go with that. Answer: save everyone. Somehow.)

If he saves his friends but loses his powers, you have a Grand Tragedy with great angst as everyone, including the friends, realizes he shouldn't have saved them because he lost the whole world. (Unless, of course, he manages to save the world without his powers through sheer pluck and noble intentions. Also a reasonable way out.)

If he doesn't save his friends, he is a cowardly, dimwitted bastard who can't figure out how to allocate his super-resources properly, because A Noble Hero would manage to save both his friends *and* the world. Or, potentially, he is angsty super-emo dude who will spend the rest of his life moping over the friends he couldn't save, doomed to live out his days with the cold comfort of having saved everyone *except* the ones dearest to him. Or, option 3, his friends convince him not to save them, because they know their deaths will go to the noble cause of preserving his powers so he can save the world, and he can toast their noble sacrifice every year on the day of their deaths.

I'd offer to provide fanfic examples for each, but (1) it'd probably take me too long to assemble them and (2) they'd almost certainly be slash, and that'd likely be too distracting to notice the story elements for people unfamiliar with slash tropes.

Worldwalker · 12-29-2010, 12:03 AM

It's less a matter of what he does than of how the author presents it. Either option (especially when expanded as Elfwreck elaborated them) could be suitably heroic; it just depends on your description.

Steven Lake · 12-29-2010, 09:25 AM

Thanks for the info guys. This has given me some interesting things to think about.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 12-29-2010, 09:38 AM

Yes, the way you have it set up, it's pretty much a lose-lose situation. If you want to leave it that way, and not (as others have suggested) to make it a nice American "happy ending" story, you (and the hero) will have to decide which eggs to break, and just get on with it.

How 'bout this: He allows his friends to die, saves the rest of the world, and takes out his frustrations by exacting incredibly painful and debilitating punishment as revenge on those responsible.

There's also this: He quickly and mercifully executes his friends, saves the rest of the world, and takes out his frustrations by exacting incredibly painful and debilitating punishment as revenge on those responsible.

But there's also the ever-popular: He saves his friends, leaving the only option to save the rest of the world being to sacrifice himself... which he does, and dies a Noble Hero.

queentess · 12-29-2010, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notre Dame

Steven, Cherrybomb is right. US audiences would like to think they could take the risk and still battle through to save the world. Most movies like that are based on long shots. And the audience loves it if the hero triumphs AFTER having had the dilemma, and sweated over it, but took the chance and put his friends first, because that's how they would subconsciosuly like it to be in real life (would that it were). And of course, all this makes it end on an upper, not a downer.

It's not even about sappy or horrifying endings: it's about fantastic people doing fantastic things. If I'm reading a book about a guy with super powers, I don't want to read about someone who fails. I want to read about someone who can overcome the impossible odds!

Steven Lake · 12-29-2010, 01:45 PM

Well, sacrificing himself to save both his friends AND the world would still provide the happy ending without being too predictable.

kcmay · 12-29-2010, 03:40 PM

Can he display amazing creative thinking and do both? Think Kobayashi Maru.

surrealmind · 12-29-2010, 04:20 PM

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.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 12-29-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcmay

Can he display amazing creative thinking and do both? Think Kobayashi Maru.

No, don't think Kobayashi Maru... that was a cheat. Lateral thinking is what's needed: Unexpected action that prevents the baddies from destroying everything, before his friends are hurt, and giving him time to act to save them. If you want a Trek reference, try ST: Insurrection.

Of course, all of this sort of short-circuits the morality issue, doesn't it?

AndrewH · 12-29-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If he jumps in and saves his friends, and retains his powers, he is A Noble Hero, and the story fits the standard Heroic Quandary issues. (You just ask yourself, "what would Batman do?" and go with that. Answer: save everyone. Somehow.)

I've grown tired of this after seeing it in books, movies, and TV shows over the years. It's too happy and sappy. I prefer the poignant story with more realistic characters.

Is your hero really going to risk the destruction of Earth for a couple people that are going to die within the next century anyway?

kcmay · 12-29-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

No, don't think Kobayashi Maru... that was a cheat. Lateral thinking is what's needed: Unexpected action that prevents the baddies from destroying everything, before his friends are hurt, and giving him time to act to save them. If you want a Trek reference, try ST: Insurrection.

Of course, all of this sort of short-circuits the morality issue, doesn't it?

I didn't mean to suggest that the character cheat -- just that he think outside the box and come up with a creative solution that nobody anticipated.

12-28-2010, 08:10 PM	#1
Steven Lake Sci-Fi Author Posts: 1,158 Karma: 14743509 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Michigan Device: PC (Calibre)	Character morality question 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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cannot display this Character	ghostyjack	Workshop	3	08-18-2010 03:45 AM
how to tell the character encoding???	rheostaticsfan	Calibre	23	06-21-2010 04:26 PM
Character with accent: è, é, ò, à, ù, ì. How?	dubmehard	Amazon Kindle	3	01-07-2010 04:57 PM
Unutterably Silly Name this character!	AprilHare	Lounge	7	08-23-2009 06:01 PM
interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"	Liviu_5	News	389	03-15-2008 02:06 AM

12-28-2010, 09:23 PM	#3
Notre Dame Magus Posts: 46 Karma: 530322 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: UK Device: Kindle	Steven, Cherrybomb is right. US audiences would like to think they could take the risk and still battle through to save the world. Most movies like that are based on long shots. And the audience loves it if the hero triumphs AFTER having had the dilemma, and sweated over it, but took the chance and put his friends first, because that's how they would subconsciosuly like it to be in real life (would that it were). And of course, all this makes it end on an upper, not a downer. http://www.chrisscottwilson.co.uk

12-28-2010, 09:53 PM	#4
Timoleon Time Enough at Last Posts: 387 Karma: 1151316 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: New England Device: iPad 3, iPhone 5, Kindle 3, Fire, Sony PRS-350	Sound like something Kant would have fun with.

12-28-2010, 10:53 PM	#5
Elfwreck Grand Sorcerer Posts: 5,187 Karma: 25133758 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)	Depends on what kind of story you want to tell. If he jumps in and saves his friends, and retains his powers, he is A Noble Hero, and the story fits the standard Heroic Quandary issues. (You just ask yourself, "what would Batman do?" and go with that. Answer: save everyone. Somehow.) If he saves his friends but loses his powers, you have a Grand Tragedy with great angst as everyone, including the friends, realizes he shouldn't have saved them because he lost the whole world. (Unless, of course, he manages to save the world without his powers through sheer pluck and noble intentions. Also a reasonable way out.) If he doesn't save his friends, he is a cowardly, dimwitted bastard who can't figure out how to allocate his super-resources properly, because A Noble Hero would manage to save both his friends and the world. Or, potentially, he is angsty super-emo dude who will spend the rest of his life moping over the friends he couldn't save, doomed to live out his days with the cold comfort of having saved everyone except the ones dearest to him. Or, option 3, his friends convince him not to save them, because they know their deaths will go to the noble cause of preserving his powers so he can save the world, and he can toast their noble sacrifice every year on the day of their deaths. I'd offer to provide fanfic examples for each, but (1) it'd probably take me too long to assemble them and (2) they'd almost certainly be slash, and that'd likely be too distracting to notice the story elements for people unfamiliar with slash tropes.

12-29-2010, 12:03 AM	#6
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	It's less a matter of what he does than of how the author presents it. Either option (especially when expanded as Elfwreck elaborated them) could be suitably heroic; it just depends on your description.

12-29-2010, 09:25 AM	#7
Steven Lake Sci-Fi Author Posts: 1,158 Karma: 14743509 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Michigan Device: PC (Calibre)	Thanks for the info guys. This has given me some interesting things to think about.

12-29-2010, 09:38 AM	#8
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Yes, the way you have it set up, it's pretty much a lose-lose situation. If you want to leave it that way, and not (as others have suggested) to make it a nice American "happy ending" story, you (and the hero) will have to decide which eggs to break, and just get on with it. How 'bout this: He allows his friends to die, saves the rest of the world, and takes out his frustrations by exacting incredibly painful and debilitating punishment as revenge on those responsible. There's also this: He quickly and mercifully executes his friends, saves the rest of the world, and takes out his frustrations by exacting incredibly painful and debilitating punishment as revenge on those responsible. But there's also the ever-popular: He saves his friends, leaving the only option to save the rest of the world being to sacrifice himself... which he does, and dies a Noble Hero.

12-29-2010, 01:45 PM	#10
Steven Lake Sci-Fi Author Posts: 1,158 Karma: 14743509 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Michigan Device: PC (Calibre)	Well, sacrificing himself to save both his friends AND the world would still provide the happy ending without being too predictable.

12-29-2010, 03:40 PM	#11
kcmay Addict Posts: 363 Karma: 500001 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Georgia, USA Device: Kindle2	Can he display amazing creative thinking and do both? Think Kobayashi Maru.

12-29-2010, 04:20 PM	#12
surrealmind Connoisseur Posts: 71 Karma: 22 Join Date: Dec 2009 Device: Nook Color CM7, EB 1150, TC1100	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.

Advert

Advert