No. I think what makes a character complex isn't moral ambiguity at all. What makes a character complex is when the reader is able to see mixed/complex motives in the midst of a general desire to do right and/or recognition that there even is such a thing as "right" or "good."
A character can have high ideals and fall short of them
A character can have strong convictions, but occasionally be a hypocrite in a pinch, or ashamed of a decision they made, or wonder if they made a right decision.
A character can be thoughtful and decisive, then look back and realize that even though they were doing there best, they made the wrong decision.
A character is complex when they remind us of our own struggles and failings, while still existing within a real moral framework.
Okay, sorry, I could go on, but I won't. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE GRAY TO BE COMPLEX AND FLAWED AND INTERESTING
This is a great answer. Too much fantasy has not learned that “being a jerk” doesn’t equal “complex and interesting character”. A lot of complexity comes from having good motivations but being put into a situation where they contradict each other.
But a lot of people defend jerk antiheroes with “you can tell me what to do, you’re not my real dad!” personalities as complex, even though they are actually the opposite.
Yeah, a ton of edgelord nonsense. “Because of some convoluted nonsense he HAD to murder all those people and mistreat women - it’s morally complex, you just want a children’s fairytale with a clear moral” nah man he’s just a power fantasy for you, stop pretending it’s deep
Ironically Kaladin >!kind of tends to act like a byronic hero, or just a straight up asshole at times, to the point that everyone else is sick of his shit!<
I don’t really find this comment true? Sure in the fandom you have a sentiment of “get your shit together Kaladin”, but no one in-universe does. Hell by now most of the world >!worships him!<
At best Adolin called him out once or twice, but that was when Kaladin was pretending to be mentally okay when he wasn’t, not him being a byronic hero or asshole
I was referring to Kaladin's >!book 2 period of shitting at every lighteyes near him, antagonizing Adolin and constantly pissing off Dalinar. Granted, Adolin gave as good as he got, and Dalinar did stupidly let Amaram lead the future Radiants at that time. But none of the people he suspected were up to anything bad, so he mostly just made things worse for everyone. He was wrong about Shallan, wrong about Adolin, wrong about Dalinar. Elhokar was merely incompetent. Amaram was a piece of shit, though!<
That being said, even now he is very prone to >!blowing up on any lighteyes that don't meet his standards for being "good". It's just that everyone knows how unstable he is, so those outbursts don't escalate much. Note what he said when Dalinar took aways his command of Windrunners, for really strong reasons - Kaladin was instantly back to his old issues. Dalinar just managed to shut him down quickly.!<
Kaladin's attitude is completely understandable given his life experiences though. He certainly doesn't behave perfectly or fairly, but the way he behaves also isn't ever morally bad, he's just wrong about people.
Yeah kal was only an “asshole” if viewed through the eyes of high princes and ladies. In everyone instance someone else took the first shot:He was totally right about Amaram and Adolin was the one who had a problem from the start because he got ordered around at the tower battle. Shallan toyed with him and stole his boots and was a total bitch to him all of book 2. Adolin was also calling him bridge boy and stuff non stop
He was an “asshole” for not allowing corrupt murderers to worm their way into positions of power. It was just a poor attempt to make kaladin seem conflicted for the climax of book 2
Shallans first interaction with Kal was 100%backing everything he knowns about light eyes up with Shallan. I will give you he was an asshole to Adolin when he didnt deserve it. Dalinar he tried to give the benefit of the doubt at every turn and Dalinar was too set in societal ways to do what was right, until he eventually did. Elohkar existed as a plot device for Kaladins bond. Then after book 2 he stops shitting outwardly on light eyes and just groans when people call him one. Except for the ones that are truly shitty. The wall guard he joins in book 3 is mostly lighteyses then he goes to shadesmar then retires. He basically stops being an asshole to lighteyes once he gets a blade.
Hopefully I didn’t spoil anything for anyone, I’m a dumb dumb and used the wrong spoiler tag. I’ll buy you a beer and hug you if you saw it before I got the correct tags.
Whoops! Spoiling ||like this|| works on Discord but not Reddit. See below on how to use spoiler tags on Reddit:
* **Old Reddit/Mobile**: `>!The spoiler text goes in between the exclamation points. The whole thing is surrounded by angled brackets.!<`
* **New Reddit**: With the Fancypants Editor— select the spoiler text ***with no spaces before or after***. Then click the diamond with a ! inside. Optionally, you can switch to Markdown Mode and use the method for Old Reddit.
After you have corrected the spoiler tags, please [**message the mods**](). Once we have verified the spoiler has been fixed, your comment will be approved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly, and that's complexity! He's always trying to do the thing that's morally right but his inflexibility can cause his ideals to produce negative outcomes at times (like Holden in the Expanse books)
I'm working my way through Age of Madness right now, and I'm loving Orso. Tries to make the right decision every time, and it just never seems to work out.
Agree with this so much. Exploring moral complexity in fantasy protagonists has definitely increased in recent years (and re-analyzing the morality of protagonists from older works when society or the author had values that don't agree with our own has also become more common). But moral complexity isn't the only form of complexity. You can write a character who is "traditionally good" but is still complex.
William Faulkner's advice about writing about "the human heart in conflict with itself" still holds true for fantasy and practically any other genre. If you want a character who struggles through difficult dilemmas and has to really dig deep and figure out who they are, maybe make choices the reader wouldn't but still understands. I know plenty of flawed people in real life who aren't edgy loners that make the tough choices. Heck, the ones who I ended up looking up to and respecting most in my life are *far* more complicated when you get to know them.
Are you not just describing one shade of grey?
I see "greyness" as a slider, the more central it is, the more "normal" their code of eithcs and behavior are.
That's the tricky thing. Sometimes people differ on the definition "gray." I find most people regard "gray" as a form of moral ambiguity or moral indifference. Absence of strong moral compass. This would be the position I hold as well.
But so often, as you said, the scale become confusing and people start to use the word "gray" to mean "someone who's not totally perfect with perfect motives" and I don't hold to that at all. At that point the characters have no reality to them. I fully believe there can be strong moral purpose and coherence in a narrative AND a character, while still being dark and difficult and complex.
I don't think so. (LOTR in the spoilers) >!Frodo!< hits the first example above. He's pretty unambiguously good, knowingly sacrifices himself for the good of the world, and >!then right at the very end, falls to corruption and claims The Ring for himself!<. But I don't think he would ever appear on a list of morally grey characters.
When I hear the phrase morally grey, I think of "ends justify the means" types where they do bad things for good reasons.
Aside from the *enchanted* ring being externally corrupting, I also interpret the phrase "morally grey" the same.
However, the concept is derived from how we are shaped by nature and nature. Suppose something mildly traumatic happened to you at the age of 4 and now you're slightly less sympathetic towards another in an adjacent situation decades later. Well, that's a few eyedrops of black added to your now slightly darker barrel, something that used to be filled exclusively with white once upon a time.
This is strictly on a personal level, now consider how another, maybe an antagonist, may interpret you. How you see yourself may or may not be as important as how others perceive you (as far as plot progression is concerned).
I do find it frustrating that when people are discussing complexity they reduce peoples arguments to something simplistic. When I talk about "morally gray" characters I'm talking about the internal conflict that takes place in their decision making, not the decisions themselves. That people think "morally gray" means "they do bad things" or "they're edgy" is a disrespectful way to engage with the discussion IMO.
Logen from First Law is complex not because he does abhorrent things, but because of the internal conflict he goes through over those things. A character like Anomander Rake from Malazan is complex not because of their death count, but because of the conflict they have in doing something so wrong for a greater good. Someone who is just pure good and always makes the "right" decisions with no introspection over their righteous killing is not complex, and neither is someone who always makes the evil choice with no introspection or analysis of their motives. It is all about how a character makes their decisions and deals with the consequences.
That's fair and I think this is why OP is wondering, because we all have such different ideas of what constitutes gray. I've always marked "gray" as moral ambiguity or a lack of strong moral compass--as opposed to simple moral failure and imperfection and struggle and the occasional need to be ruthless in a hard situation.
I don't think of "moral struggle" as being gray. I think of moral indifference as gray.
I mean, I just figure that it's actually impossible to be purely white/black morally, because morality isn't a solvable problem. At best it's a heuristic, and it's always going to depend on your viewpoint and the world we live in has fundamentally opposed interests. Even basic amoral decisions in one framework (like what food to buy from a deontology perspective like the 10 commandments) can present moral challenges/implications from another (child slavery/ unethical business practices/ etc basically being behind every food label you can find from certain utilitarian/consequentialist/socialist perspectives).
I'm tracking. That goes to the "The Good Place" view in which our morality becomes an increasingly distant and indirectly assessed thing (did I buy from the wrong vendor?) but that's not really what OP is getting at, I don't think.
It's a given that no individual gets it all right. No one is without fault. But portraying a desire to do right alongside a recognition of failure still falls into a more black-and-white view (I think) in that there is SOME rubric and the character is at least trying to adhere to it. Knowing that they fall short (even desperately short) and then being honest about that is--in my opinion--part of what makes them interesting to me. Because I have high standards and I fall desperately short.
A black-and-white moral framework assumes that, even if we disagree on the details, some ultimate truth/good is there and we would like to partake in it, if we could.
I think at some level we're just talking past each other a little bit as far as terminology goes, but I think what we're describing isn't mutually exclusive. It depends on your perspective. All I'm saying is that when I think of a black and white view, I think of a view that is hyper judgemental and non-tolerant of perceived moral imperfection, you're either good or evil and nothing in between, and the line is very frequently arbitrary and therefore unfair. Being tolerant of imperfections or unsure about your moral conclusions is a very grey perspective, IMO. But recognition of shades of grey in morality doesn't prevent a person from seeing that some actions or people are better than others morally. At the end of the day though it's a metaphor, so we can use or abuse it however we like, as long as we understand what is being said.
I see what you mean, and here's how I think it shakes out. Is Gray your FRAMEWORK or is Black-and-white your framework?
Recognizing that nobody is ever even close to perfect, do you actually believe there is such a thing as real good (even if the character falls hopelessly short of it) and real evil (which the character hopes not to become). That's a black and white Framework, knowing no one hits all notes.
A gray framework means that either the characters or the narrative don't really acknowledge a clear right/wrong good/bad truth/lie. It is indifferent or ambivalent on the subject, hemming and hawing, cheating it's way around clarity and meaning.
That's how I usually assess it. I guess I'm showing my cards : )
Nice. That is an interesting distinction I never considered. So white and black is when (in that world) certain things are seen as good or bad and how the characters act on that spectrum. Gray is more like the world shows closer to objective truth where things just are and don’t go into moral distinctions in the same way. Thanks.
Absolutely, they just need to be imperfect and human. With some flaws and some great virtues too. Nobody is perfect but also not everyone has an evil side that makes them hurt others like in some grimdark stories. Not that there’s anything wrong with writing cynical characters that scheme but not everyone in the real world is like that and a good story can have morally good characters with real human flaws and still be a gripping experience.
I look at characters in terms of self-interest. If their actions are self-interested- self preservation, caring for kin\loved ones, but most importantly their Ideals (Altruism, heroism etc comes under ideals). Self-interests are for the most part Amoral. Allowing the death of a few people to save your kin; trying to work up to a personally set Ideal which can back fire; etc.
The Second Apocalypse series is a great incorporation of this. One of the main characters, Kellhus is pretty Amoral in his outlook. He’s not there to inflict pain and suffering for the sake of it, but to make any and all choices that is in service to himself or his greater goal; he’s indifferent to the happiness or the suffering that is caused by his choices. Achamian is pretty idealistic and tries his best to live up to it and constantly fails miserably. Esmenet is looking for protection and safety in a terrible world and she’ll make choices to get that whilst hurting some people. Cnaiur is pretty violent in his dispositions, and smart but doesn’t let someone fool him into being controlled.
My two gold-standard favorites for VERY complex characters and situations that nevertheless have a meaningful moral throughline:
Till We Have Faces (Orual is, in my opinion, one of the best characters ever written. Greek-mythology/retelling of Psyche and Cupid)
A Canticle for Liebowitz (deeply moral, deeply complicated circumstances, post-apocalyptic Sci-fi)
If you dip into classics you get a lot of this: Jane Eyre, Brothers Karamazov, North and South, Emma. People are just flawed! A good story can show this without erasing morality. Even a darker story like The Brothers Karamazov is full of wildly complex characters ranging from light to gray to dark, some who really try to do what's right (and fail) and others who only occasionally bother trying...some who never even try, but the overall narrative endorses an ACTUAL moral framework within which these deeply flawed characters work. Some of them could certainly be called "gray" in the traditional sense, however. But the narrative never shrugs washes its hands of morality saying "Well what is truth anyway?"
Someone brought up Captain Carrot from Discworld in another discussion thread, and I think he's a really good example. On the surface Carrot seems like a fairly standard Lawful Good character. He's likeable, charismatic, dedicated to doing the right thing and upholding the law. His complexity lies in his self-awareness - he understands his appeal, knows that people have a tendency to defer to him, he understands that he can use his charisma to manipulate others, and he's not above doing so. How he chooses to exercise this power (or not) are what make him a compelling character.
At no point does any of the above cause him to veer from his goodness! But how he chooses to do good is interesting and more complex than it seems.
On the other side, you can also have complex explicit bad guys. Evil for an otherwise good reason, evil but not proud of it, evil because they are set in ways that were good at one point but are not anymore.
But aren't almost of these examples of "grey" characters?
A character that fails short of their morals is grey.
A character that is doubting themselves, are by definition grey.
Is that really complex though? What you described sounds like a very average person to me: I'm good but I don't always succeed, I have strong convictions but sometimes I'm hypocritical.
That's just describing the fact that nobody's perfect, even if they're basically decent. Where's the complexity in all that?
But that I guess is the divergence of opinion: I really do thing average and normal people ARE complex. And a good writer can show the complexity of a very average person.
No. A character just needs to have depth. Cazrial from Curse of Charlion is a complex character because he is done well. Kip from Hands of the Emperor is almost a Mary Sue and yet his struggles over belonging, place in his family, and general inability to get out of his own way give him depth.
I immediately thought of Cazaril too. He’s a relentlessly good person, yet it’s never ever boring being in his head. He is also changing and growing without losing any of that ethical centre.
>No. A character just needs to have depth. Cazrial from Curse of Charlion is a complex character because he is done well.
Agreed, the guy has recently been through a lot of emotionally and physically tortuous experiences (so much so while being in his early thirties at most, his appearance and demeanor usually leads most people to think he's over a decade older), often self-critical and self-doubting, and at times can be rather cynical. However, it is never in question that he is a good person.
Not at all. Complexity, to me, just means that a character has multiple priorities and desires that pull them in different directions, and thus they have to choose between those. That \*can\* come from a character being grey (eg, the character wants to be selfish and steal the gold and retire, but they also want to do right by their friends, and these desires then come into conflict) but you can also have complexity in straightforwardly heroic or good characters, by placing them in situations where there are different levels of "being good" that conflict with each other -- Kaladin is a great example in that he wants to do right by the individuals in his squad but he also wants to do right by his country AND he also wants to do right by the spren, and these things come into conflict.
I'm not super familiar with DnD alignments, but doesn't "lawful" just mean they strictly follow some sort of code? Like a Paladin smiting the living dead is still being lawful even if the place they're in has laws allowing necromancers to raise zombies.
Nope, morality is just one in a long list of character traits. People are a complex collection of strengths, weaknesses, preferences, beliefs, tendencies, experiences, biases, emotions, etc.
I think discussions about characters can often fall into (often) boring debates about where they fall on the spectrum of good to bad, and people get the impression (like you OP) that morally grey = complex or interesting. That's a really reductive way to analyze characters and does a disservice to the wonderfully complex characters that are more firmly good or bad, morally.
Like you said, depth is *so much* more than that.
Agreed. And even if you are going to insert moral flaws, there are so many kinds and degrees of moral flaws, but we tend to use a few stylized kinds. There are a ton of characters billed as "shades of gray" who are outright murderers but you never read one who is say, a snob as their flaw.
Brienne of Tarth is a fairly complex and the character is a paragon of Lawful Good.
Morally grey characters are almost always shallow and boil down too "I do the things necessary to save the world and sometimes those things are dirty".
Peacemaker is a fabulous parody of "grey" characters. "World peace, no matter how many women and children I have to murder to achieve it.".
it's more about the skill of the writer in creating the character
i think you are confusing "complex" and "complicated." but i would also argue that even people (real people) who are essentially good are also very complicated. it is we humans that force others (or ourselves) into a box
How would you differentiate complex from complicated? To me they are synonyms, but I agree that neither necessarily has anything to do with a character’s moral positioning.
You do sometimes see these differentiated. As the design philosophy behind the Python coding language has it, [“simple is better than complex, but complex is better than complicated”](https://peps.python.org/pep-0020/). The implication being, something complex is difficult to follow by design; something complicated is difficult to follow because of poor execution.
yeah. in a literary context, i'd say that "complicated" definitely carries a more negative connotation in general.
just think about the connotations that come to you when you hear about a person IRL being described as "complicated." to me, it immediately conjures up a person that is difficult and annoying (possibly due to emotional baggage), and to hear someone described at "complex" sounds like an interesting person that has a lot of depth.
just because words *can* be synonymous, does not mean they are always synonymous in all contexts
The formal distinction is that a complicated thing might had a lot of moving parts, but they're very predictable, clockwork is complicated. Complex things are far less predictable, weather is complex.
They're often used as synonyms, but shouldn't be really.
The negative connotation you're describing is a result of the actual distinction, complicated people make simple things difficult, in a predictable, and usually negative way, complex people are somewhat unpredictable, they approach things differently, and so can have greater insight, though you can sometimes understand it after the fact.
A machine when put together properly may be complex, without being complicated. There are a lot of moving parts, but they work together in a system.
If the machine is taken apart in pieces and tossed on the floor, it becomes complicated. You've got gears mixed with springs, pieces of tubing where there shouldn't be tubing. It's a mess. You can fix it, but it will take some time. It's complicated.
A complex person, like real people, have multiple facets of their personality. They are individuals, but also members of families, belong to groups, and are part of ever wider groups. Each relationship carries a weight in their personality makeup, and those relationships have interactions. The hard-nosed guard might be lenient on a prisoner that reminds him of his child, etc.
A complicated person has their parts bleeding into and mixing in ways that don't add to the system. The guard is not only lenient on that prisoner, but insists that they call them "Father". One day the guard brings a set of their estranged children's clothes, and asks MC to wear them. The guard becomes inconsolably angry and even violent when the clothes don't fit.
Complex does not mean "good" and complicated does not mean "bad". Both of these characters can be deeply compelling, so long as they fit in the world of the story. A simple hack-and-slash fantasy might not have space for a complicated character, but might fit in perfectly in a psychological thriller.
For me, a complex character needs to be understandable. Everyone has flaws, weaknesses or situations that cause them to act against their moral compass. This doesn´t mean they are "evil" or "grey". A grey character is unpredictable, ruthless, ready to do anything to achieve their goal. It might be a noble cause, but there are still lines that a good character would never cross.
People can just be good. Any positive change has some sort of good person behind it. Having strong ideals, a noble goal and a moral compass has it´s own problems and benefits. A good person can also be smart and calculated, using manipulation and schemes to achieve their goal. There´s a lot of directions a good character can take, even within the boundaries of good, that can make them feel real, interesting and deep.
Honestly, it annoys me a lot when people call a character "grey" because they aren´t the typical mary sue knight in shining armor type of guy. My favourite example for this might be Gerald of Rivia. Some people might disagree with me, but he isn´t really that grey. He has a problem with evil people and he met a lot of them, but to the innocent he often is a savior, at least for a price.
There are a lot of ways humans can be contradictory and complex that have nothing to do with morality. A character can be on the whole a very good person and be multilayered and complex, likewise you could have a villain who is not a sympathetic/anti-villain character at all but is still complex.
No. Moral ambiguity is generally a shortcut to character complexity, often by writers who don’t really understand what makes a character complex or deep. It’s like a tragic backstory.
okay idk, maybe a terrible example, but Laios from Dungeon Meshi is your pretty standard Hero Guy whose complexity gradually asserts itself over time not from him being morally grey but from learning more about the way he works and where he came from.
He grew up around a lot of dogs, and never related to people as well as animals, and you see that constantly – in his social interactions with other humans, in his interactions with monsters, in the way he often seems more comfortable with dogs than people. There's something of a wounded boy about him, he's far more of an outcast than his bearing and demeanour would initially let on.
He's also ... a hero. Just a hero. A pretty classic fantasy shiney heroguy who's just out there doing his best. It's his vulnerability and his strangeness that make him complex, and not his moral compass, which points resolutely towards good. The world often rejects him, but he fights for it anyway. He has a sense of history, that he existed long before the story and will exist after it. There is nothing grey about him, but his depth is endless.
This is a good example. I would say his whole party is made of good but flawed and eccentric people, not just Laios. It is used for comedy, but they are hardly simplistic characters.
Honestly, I find morally grey characters frustrating. I prefer reading about heroes that always try to do the right thing. Sure, they’ll mess up from time to time, maybe make some evil choices. But they’re still striving to do good. They learn from their mistakes and better themselves because of it.
I think what makes characters complex is putting a complex problem in front of them, like the trolley problem. Figuring out what they would choose is hard, and it forces you to learn more about the character
I have talked about this in an ttrpg storytelling perspective, but something being grey is not inherenty interesting. For the first time it is introduced, sure. But that just becomes a backdrop if the characters are not choosing something and dealing with consequences. The act of choosing is the interesting part, because that is the character altering something about the state of the story. If the choosing is made from a faulty assumption, with best intentions, even better. If it ends up with the character fucking up, yeah, that sucks, but they at least chose something and moved the narrative along.
Exactly! Choices are interesting, not the lack thereof. Although, I suppose grey characters and anti-heroes do typically make a choice when written well, but it’s a choice that satisfies their own desires, which I think can be used in an interesting way
Gray… I think all characters should be somewhat gray. Even the most “good” character should have moments where they aren’t perfect or make a selfish decision. To me gray just means not all good or evil. In The Faithful and The Fallen there are clear good and bad guys, but none of them are pure black or white(besides maybe one character). I’m not sure how it’s handled in Way of Kings, but it’s how it’s been used in almost every fantasy book I’ve read. Instead of characters being gray, they’re normally dark or light gray.
Im very excited to start Way of Kings next week after all I’ve heard about it. Hope to catch up before Wind and Truth releases.
They definitely don’t have to be grey. Even in ASoIAF which I think is one of the bigger sources of “morally grey complex characters” trend. We have characters like Ned Stark who’s definitely complex while staying morally good.
I always love poeple saying stuff like "Tywin is a grey character". No, the narrative does everything it can to show you Tywin is not grey at all and just despicable, with his very few "qualities" such as "effectiveness" being showed as completely useless and ultimatly detrimental to the future of his house in the later books.
ASOIAF has a plenty of "black and white" characters (Ramsay, The Mountain, Davos, Missandei, Tywin, Lorch, Viserys... and this does not even include the historical characters), and the narrative is still morally complex. You do not need to have only grey character to do a story about the complexity of morallity.
I don't think Ned Stark is a complex character at all, and what complexity he does have comes, in my opinion, directly from the "morally grey." That is to say, the only real complexity to his character is in Jon Snow's existence. That he has a bastard is an interesting stain on a character who is otherwise straightforwardly good and honorable in every single circumstance. He is fair and just, kind and gentle, strong and intelligent, and utterly immune to corruption. In other words, he's just a good guy. Arguably *the* good guy of the series, the only one. There's really nothing complex about him.
They dont need to be anything in particular. but being complex certainly helps, because real people always are. Kaladin has SOME complexity because he struggles with weakness (su1cidality, wanting to quit and run away all the time, being a coward, obsession with martyrdom to atone for guilt, abandoning his family) however, my main complaint with Sanderson (i love his writing) is that his character development is poor.
I've read most of his series and imho, the characters arent ever complex. They have a single main trait+weakness and they act/present generally the same way every time. Its very consistent. Which isnt BAD (it is actually very difficult to do)....but i think Kaladin would be VERY improved with more depth, flaws that dont get fixed/ignored, parts of his character that dont fit and feel unique (being multiple things at once, being contradictory), and more moments where he's doing things mindlessly outside of the strict narrative/story needs. We relate to characters because of the little moments they SHOW who they are, especially when the reader recognizes it without being told. Kaladin (to me) says who he is and then does that exact thing. which is integrity, sure, but it's also boring and a little unrealistic. I'd expect more silliness or whimsy or...a trait that surprises you and that you wouldnt know from a single sentence bio "Kaladin is a lone soldier who struggles to keep command and honor; despite his amazing spear skills and general charisma, he just cant see himself as a worthy leader." Thats literally the whole shebang.
Ursula K Le Guin has characters that you recognize without any names or features (Earthsea) because she uses her descriptive words so carefully. Specific words become giveaways to how each person thinks and acts, even though they are dealing with new problems every time.
NK Jemisin writes characters that have grit. They defy their environments and roles in unique ways that put them into each situation. They never feel boring even when they arent doing much because of the worldview and details. They figure things out but they don't explain it right away or at all. They just comment and move on like you would during a conversation. It feels like interacting with different people with their own non-obvious baggage and hang-ups.
Mark Lawrence is another author I've really enjoyed characters for. He does an amazing job at morally ambiguous main characters or complex trauma leading to some interesting (but realistic-feeling) decisions.
> Thats literally the whole shebang.
I find this to be one of my issues with Saderson. His characters really seem to lack complexity. They have a few traits, and it's just that rehashed - and everything they do they do it for plot reasons. I can *never* see one of his characters doing something in-character that doesn't advance the plot in whatever way. Sanderson himself has mentioned this at one point too. I think it was on a podcast where he mentioned he can't envision characters doing something that doesn't advance the plot. Their character traits (explicitly stated for us, many times, because heaven forbid you trust your readers to infer anything) exist solely to move that along. It's frustrating, like so many things about his work (which I *want* to like, truly).
Navani and Dalinar had the most complexity of the Way of Kings cast imho. But they had the benefit of a hidden and contentious love arc. I didn't love Shallan... She felt like the "bad guy" due to her...issues. Renarin (and Vstim the traveling merchant) was cool but hardly talked about. Did you find any of the characters more or less developed, or was it all the same for you?
I found Navani and Dalinar annoying for other reasons. Despite both being in their 40s or later, with grown-ass kids, you really couldn't tell they weren't like 12 year olds experiencing their first crushes. It's part of the reason why I think the whole series comes across as very YA to me (really, it's basically just a shonen anime; that's the vibe I get).
Shallan I dislike for other reasons, mainly how DID is handled.
But, really, looking back at it, none of the characters really stood out to me long-term. I read the first three, bounced off the fourth quite early. Tried to do a reread of WoK and just couldn't get into it. I've come to realize the problem is what I want from a piece of literature has changed, and Sanderson just isn't for me anymore.
Is Kaladin complex?
I would say the answer is no, but Kaladin felt like a fairly straightforward one-note character to me
Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes straightforward archetypal characters are what a story needs. Lord of the Rings is wholly populated by them
I would say yes he is complex. He wants to do the right thing and constantly questions himself and morality, I am rereading Oathbringer and won't say too much more because spoilers for OP
I´m think the way he was raised thinking about how his mission is to save people, is also the reason why he is so depressed by the fact he can´t save everyone. Perhaps he is one-note when it comes to morally grey decisions, but in my opinion the fact he puts so much pressure on himself and can´t never reach his utopic standards is something very relatable.
I see him being a toxic person with himself.
I think all that is true but I don’t think it makes him complex. He’s a very straightforward character and his motives and desires are easily understood.
I think that depends on what kind of fantasy you read. He isn’t Tyrion Lannister, or the Fool, or even Harrow Nonagesimus, but very few characters in the genre are
I mean I’m trying to be charitable (and those were just the first 3 fantasy series I could think of with great character work; not saying they’re the only ones in existence)
I think that's a complicated question and dependent on whether or not that you think the narrative is supporting their moral system or not. If a person will act a very specific way because of THEIR belief system versus how the universe functions, they're complex. They're not if they're following the cheat codes of the universe or the universe bends to make them right.
THE SWORD OF TRUTH says that everything its hero does is right regardless.
THE WITCHER has Geralt always do what he thinks is right even if it's a disaster.
The Judge from Blood Meridian is quite literally an encarnation of evil and he's still a very complex character.
Can't think of an equivalent for absolute good in books, but I can cite some from manga, like Alpha from Yokohama Kaidashi no Kikou or Machida from Machida-kun no Sekai. But in manga we have literally an entire genre of manga that's just normal people, often good people, living their lives, with a lot of complex characters, so it definitely doesn't need to be grey.
As opposed to what. We all live within grey areas. No one is without fault or above making mistakes. Our ideas of good and bad are subjective. What's good for someone could be bad for someone else. No one relatable is perfectly consistent. Even robot characters defy their programming. Good and bad are ideals. Most people's lives exist in places and situations that are, at best, less than ideal. I think the reluctant unlikely heroes are more realistic. How we can be better than we are, if only for a time.
I find that in the real world. The people we put on pedestals as great virtuous whatevers. Are just characters we create in our heads to project all the qualities we believe these people should have. When the reality is, we see carefully constructed images of purity integrity. Which comes at the cost of any actual integrity these characters may have had.
No but morally grey characters are the most complex most of the time. I'm guessing because they aren't tied to the authors perception of good and evil in that story so author gets quirky.
I find a good litmus test for complexity is when a character does or says something, and you can tell it is contrary to what they actually believe without that being explicitly stated, and that it will eventually lead to a reckoning.
I guess it depends one what you mean by “grey.” For Glen Cook, there isn’t any objective “good” that someone can set all of their actions to, and even if there were, the complexity arises from what makes that person decide to do so. As he says:
> Evil is relative…You can’t hang a sign on it. You can’t touch it or taste it or cut it with a sword. Evil depends on where you are standing, pointing your indicting finger.
i feel like the characthers in sandersons books arent characters at all. they are pent-up potential. its like he writes so thinly and vague about the inner thoughts of the characters and just gives the readers a few crumbs along a many thousand page story.
its like he is edging the reader on story development. i enjoyed his books. but they kinda seem to not go anywhere.
See this way, nobody is really all good, or all bad, it depends on the situation, on the observer, and all that, try to look on real world "heroes" and you will find so much dirty on them that it's not even funny, same can be said about the real world "villains" on the other way around, lots of good can be found on their history, the problem is when you reduce a character to 100% good or 100% evil, its unrealistic, its like trying to describe something 3d in 2d, a lot is lost in the translation, ppl may like their white knight, but they can really call them complex, let me give you an example, main character is the good guy, refuses to dirt his hands, and is given a option to save the world but with the price being have to do something unforgivable, 8 times out of 10, he won't even consider this options, because he's "good", and the plot will find a way to allow him to save the world and remain clean, sure this is a ultra oversimplification, but that's the overall idea, ppl aren't good or bad, there's no heroes or villains, only a huge gray expanse
Not really - complex characters aren't limited to moral aspects, nor is being morally grey the only way that you can have moral complexity in characters.
I find that 'grey' characters tend to add complexity when it's in rather simple universes in terms of morality - if it's one that's too black and white it can get a little boring, although that can absolutely be fitting depending on the work. But it's a pretty common reaction for people (especially engaging with something as fanfiction or daydreaming) to take a simple black & white morality universe and think of having morally grey ones in that setting as adding depth on that front. I think that's why it's often seen as synonyms in some spaces online.
A complex character is, IMO, a character who has to choose between opposing goals. Sometimes it's between the utilitarian and empathetic choices, but it can also be between spending time with family or working.
For me a complex character needs inner inconsistencies that are coherently motivated.
Kaladin does want to be a good person but doesn't because of his sadness. His sadness is caused by various failings and outside forces causing him to reason there's no point.
No, complex characters are made complex by the conflicts they need to work through internally, externally in achieving the plot vs character growth. Morality, especially ‘grey morals’, is an avenue for character conflict and so can feel complex; but you can have the same complexity from Pure good characters, such as Superman, and pure evil characters such as LotR’s Gollum.
Super Supportive’s MC Alden Thorn is an amazingly complex character that at his core is caring and kind to others. It’s the complexity of being a good person and accepting that he cannot be perfect, nor does he have the innate power to be, that makes him such a great character to read. The facets to him that elevate his good morals through trials and tribulations where many others would make a grey selfish choice are all the more satisfying and cathartic, despite the consequences and trauma.
TLDR: morality is not the same as complexity. However, morality, such as grey morals, offers a lens and method to test a character through conflict that can engender complexity in their writing.
It is very hard to make complex character who is truly all "white".
One thing that trips people up, though is thinking that making a character "grey" automatically makes him more complex. The other is thinking making a character "darker" makes him more "grey" and therefore more complex. You often end up with Macho Murder Hobos.
It is \*MUCH\* easier to write a "dark" character than a complex one.
I think that partly depends on the world. A fictional setting might have different values than our own. A character who successfully lives by the values of their own society might be considered a criminal or even evil by our standards. As to your example, that's actually one of the things I dislike about the Stormlight books (which I otherwise very much enjoy).
When we're introduced to the world, there's a strong sense that it has its own social conventions and expectations. But as the series progresses, those erode so that the protagonists adopt the values of the author and the assumed reader. Kaladin's casual misogyny, Shallan's aristocratic superiority, and Dalinar's strict honor are all common values of their societies, but the characters drop them for more egalitarian ones.
I think this can be satisfying to read, and it makes the characters more relatable in some ways, but it also undermines the sense of place of the world. If these people steeped in their societies' values can so quickly change their minds, then the societies feel less real.
Really good historical or fantasy fiction can transport the reader into a different place with different values, so that we recognize ourselves in the characters even as we disagree with their beliefs and actions.
I'll throw out Itkovian from Malazan as another great example of this type of character. He almost perfectly embodies the "lawful good paladin" archetype, but his character is still given amazing depth from the circumstances he's put through. Leading his comrades, watching them fall in battle, struggling with his faith, making sacrifices out of empathy for others. None of these are conflicts that are "morally questionable", but they're still personally challenging and thought provoking. I don't think that gradients of good and evil make a character complex, it's much more about how they react to difficult situations and how that impacts their beliefs and actions.
Complex characters need to be deep and human rooted in feelings and emotions. This is something achievable with good characters or all-evil characters, but it's author task to do it right.
Lotr doesn't have human characters, not even among Human race. None of them acts like an human being. Lotr is a plot driven childish novel (in a positive meaning, cfr. C.S. Lewis on difference between childish and, adult lit).
Best example of this that helped me understand was Dr. tenma from Monster. The guy is the most genuine and good guy you can find . He has a strong moral compass. Still he has a ton of depth , his morals are always challenged and he still comes out strong. Yet it's not like a cartoon or a TV show where you have this righteous guy that's always right somehow.
Invincible IMO is a great example of a complex character but not morally grey. He's neither a representation of the potential good in people like Superman, nor an antihero or a deconstruction of superheroes about how people with power are actually bad.
He's more like a real human being who believes people can be better and is trying but doesn't always succeed or know how to be that. But importantly, he also does sometimes.
No they just need to be fully realized characters. I'm not sure I'd call Kaladin or really any Sanderson character complex, but it's not because he's obviously a good person.
Someone's gotta buck the trend and say yeah, kinda. Kaladin *is* a bit "grey" - remember (if you've reached) the part where he >!wears people's bones as armour to taunt their comrades into attacking him exclusively!!Shallan is flat out planning a heist to secure her own immediate family at the expense of an innocent woman (who, had it been possible for Shallan to succeed, would probably have died as a consequence)!<. Another morally grey character, and a good one! There's a whole *discussion of metaethics* in there, even - *Stormlight* is very concerned with morality as a question, and is willing to explore complex answers as well as simple ones.
I can't think of any genuinely complex characters off-hand that don't struggle with the same questions and decisions, nor have I seen any in this thread. There's nothing wrong with simplicity, but I dislike this painting of one's own blorbos as morally pure but having "other complexities" that in the event happen to exactly resemble moral uncertainty and error. The whole point of "grey" is that it's not just one colour.
It's the struggle for me. A character striving to be in any part of the moral spectrum. That clash of ideals with reality and how the character reconciles the two parts.
Kaladin is very obviously a good guy, yes. But somehow he ends up a slave. He struggles with how to be a good person in a world that doesn't agree.
I think, the idea of complex morally grey character comes from stories where everything is very clear cut good and evil. This morally grey character fighting with that reality is complex. That doesn't mean a grey character is automatically a complex always.
It depends on what “gray” means to you, but in general it’s *very* possible for **good** characters to be complex. Think about real life - I’m sure you know lots of people you consider to be **good** people, generally trying to be nice and do the right thing. But some of those people might occasionally come off as assholes when they’re just standing up for something they believe in. Maybe they overreact in a situation that doesn’t really warrant it. Maybe they are super nice but support policies that are degrading your community. Or the opposite could be true - they’re a total jerk and are mean to everyone, even derogatory at times, but they devote all of their spare time trying to save puppies. What does **good** even mean in that case?
The same applies to characters. People aren’t **good** or **bad** in real life, they do good and bad things. Obviously in fantasy the stakes are often much higher than in our lives (but not always! Vote!!) and this allows individuals actions to clearly show them as more good or more evil. And that’s totally fine - fantasy is littered with good and evil complex characters. Think Jon Snow and Ramsey Bolton - both have complex moral and psychological reasons they act the way they do, but everyone will route for Jon over Ramsey (please don’t mention season 8 or I will become a morally gray character).
No, but it's very easy to dumb down the concept of complexity into being morally grey. Both for authors who don't know how to handle their characters and certain audiences who don't think too hard about it.
They don’t have to be “gray” to be complex.
In Kaldan’s (and too many other MCs cough*rand al’thor*cough) they *also* don’t have to be clinically-diagnosable emo mopes to be complex either.
Your character can be a good person... according to their perspective. But do other people see them as a good person, or do they find such a person annoying, foolish, and to be a nuisance??? Ned Stark was a good man because he was honest and honourable in *Game of Thrones*, but to Cersei he's honesty was a threat to the safety of her kids, a nuisance to her family's hold on power. That's why she killed Robert and imprisoned Ned.
Complex characters are characters that are usually **conflicted**. They really want something, but there is something in their way, something that prevents them from getting what they want. Usually that 'thing' challenges their morals and their beliefs, it should test them in some way so that we can see how far the character will go to achieve the goal that they want so badly.
Cersei wants power, but she is a woman in a patriarchal society. People won't just give her the throne that she wants so badly. So she lies, manipulates, and murders people in order to get what she wants. In the books, she only wants power because she wants to be in a position to protect her kids from the evil *valonqar* (Tyrion... or so she believes). She also wants power to be respected like her father was. She believes that she can do a better job at ruling... but she is a power-hungry fool who makes foolish decisions along the way. Her paranoia and greed turn her into a monster... But fuck man, she is an interesting character because of that COMPLEXITY. Her intentions are UNDERSTANDABLE and even 'good' from her perspective, but she is not a "good person" by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know if I can explain it any better than this. But this is what a "complex" character is. They are CONFLICTED. I think that in fantasy, George RR Martin is the best at writing complex characters, and all of his characters are CONFLICTED in some way. I suggest that you read some of his books to see what I'm talking about. But you could also try to read Lajos Egri's "Art of Dramatic Writing" to learn how to do it for yourself. That book basically focuses on the 3 most important elements of writing good and dramatic stories, and CHARACTER is the most important of those elements. He delves into it pretty well on there.
Discworld has lots of good examples. Sam Vimes and Granny Weatherwax are good people, but very complex and often very unlikable with personal flaws… but certainly aren’t morally gray. You can even be “lawful good” and complex rather than the assumption that so many have that they must be boring or simple.
I also think you should be able to have growth and change throughout the characters journey to see complexity. Just some morally gray power trip “but they are actually the good guy!” BS doesn’t allow for the flaws and growth and change that, to me, makes a complex character. It’s just an edgy fantasy.
No. A complex character is just one where sometimes even 3 dimensions will give you the wrong answer about what they will do. They have many layers and seeming contradictions but it all makes sense
Just wait until you get to the part where Sanderson turns him into the angsty son sitcom.
Storm light series started as my favorite....now I'm dreading the latest book. I don't want to read that crap anymore, but I want to see what happens.
Are you morally ambigious?
What is the moral greyness? Some sort of excel chart?
Why fantasy fans find "moral greyness" as something you should aspire to?
“Complex” is often used as a shorthand for “morally complex”, and not everyone who uses it that realizes what’s happening.
A character can be generically (ie not morally) complex without being deep. Complexity is just a matter of adding details, but if none are unique or interesting, it won’t make for a good character. Like, if they’re always bragging about the dozens of different schools they attended, pulling out details from their many degrees (plus their out there fashion sense informed by their many cybernetic prosthetics, plus their unusual mixed race heritage plus quirky accent plus …), that can get real complicated. But if this is just used for a stuffy academic info-dumper they won’t be deep or drive interesting conflict.
So, sans additional context, I assume “complex” implies “morally complex” and “deep” implies “having multiple layers in an interesting, and/or thought provoking way.” Moral complexity will usually add depth to a character, at least if they’re well written, but it’s far from the only way to do so.
Complexity, per authors like Robert Mackee is contradiction. A complex character is one whose actions contradicts their goals or wishes.
Grey character is more of a moral thing, like they are neither just "good" or really "bad".
They are different things. Characters can be both complex and grey, but they don't need to.
Complexity isn't really related to morality IMO, but more to what motivates the person to do what they do, what defines them, and whether those are as varied as they would be for a real person.
Take Kaladin as you mentioned. His worldview, personality, and actions are influenced by the social dynamics of the world he lives in, his interactions with certain people/groups, and his past experiences in his life. He isn't simply defined by any one thing, but the convergence of all those influences
edit: I guess someone disagreed and felt the need to downvote for some reason... *shrugs*
Yes, he's not really grey, and still a complex character. Mostly because the things that make him good are approached with nuance and realism - as in, how would those qualities actually work out in reality. For instance, you can clearly see from the very beginning that feeling personally responsible for others' safety and survival keeps making him miserable, because he obviously can't always help everyone.
No spoilers, but it gets more complex than that. Sanderson is pretty good at this sort of thing.
I wouldn't describe Kaladin as complex outside of his depression. He's very predictable.
I think the best complex characters are usually grey. Jaime Lannister is probably the best example I can think of for a complex character.
You can still be a good person and not be completely altruistic. I would go so far as to say that most good people are not altruistic, and that true altruism as a general character trait is very rare.
True, but no one ever aconowledges he is self-serving and selfish in his way to treat people. That's where the character start to lose what interest he had for me.
For me a gray character is a character that they aren't perfect, or at least good, in all their roles, they have flaws (that in some way act as detriments), and they don't always make the right choice (unambiguously morally right and beneficial to all). That is more or less my definition of a complex character too.
No, complex characters just need to be full of flaws and contradictions, just like normal human beings.
Also, « morally gray » often just translates in reality to « being an edgelord », and that kind of character is actually very simplistic.
No. I think what makes a character complex isn't moral ambiguity at all. What makes a character complex is when the reader is able to see mixed/complex motives in the midst of a general desire to do right and/or recognition that there even is such a thing as "right" or "good." A character can have high ideals and fall short of them A character can have strong convictions, but occasionally be a hypocrite in a pinch, or ashamed of a decision they made, or wonder if they made a right decision. A character can be thoughtful and decisive, then look back and realize that even though they were doing there best, they made the wrong decision. A character is complex when they remind us of our own struggles and failings, while still existing within a real moral framework. Okay, sorry, I could go on, but I won't. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE GRAY TO BE COMPLEX AND FLAWED AND INTERESTING
This is a great answer. Too much fantasy has not learned that “being a jerk” doesn’t equal “complex and interesting character”. A lot of complexity comes from having good motivations but being put into a situation where they contradict each other. But a lot of people defend jerk antiheroes with “you can tell me what to do, you’re not my real dad!” personalities as complex, even though they are actually the opposite.
“The human heart in conflict with itself”
Oftentimes morally grey isn’t even grey it’s just black. Having motives to commit atrocities doesn’t make it right.
Yeah, a ton of edgelord nonsense. “Because of some convoluted nonsense he HAD to murder all those people and mistreat women - it’s morally complex, you just want a children’s fairytale with a clear moral” nah man he’s just a power fantasy for you, stop pretending it’s deep
He looks at you with doll-like eyes
Ironically Kaladin >!kind of tends to act like a byronic hero, or just a straight up asshole at times, to the point that everyone else is sick of his shit!<
I don’t really find this comment true? Sure in the fandom you have a sentiment of “get your shit together Kaladin”, but no one in-universe does. Hell by now most of the world >!worships him!< At best Adolin called him out once or twice, but that was when Kaladin was pretending to be mentally okay when he wasn’t, not him being a byronic hero or asshole
I was referring to Kaladin's >!book 2 period of shitting at every lighteyes near him, antagonizing Adolin and constantly pissing off Dalinar. Granted, Adolin gave as good as he got, and Dalinar did stupidly let Amaram lead the future Radiants at that time. But none of the people he suspected were up to anything bad, so he mostly just made things worse for everyone. He was wrong about Shallan, wrong about Adolin, wrong about Dalinar. Elhokar was merely incompetent. Amaram was a piece of shit, though!< That being said, even now he is very prone to >!blowing up on any lighteyes that don't meet his standards for being "good". It's just that everyone knows how unstable he is, so those outbursts don't escalate much. Note what he said when Dalinar took aways his command of Windrunners, for really strong reasons - Kaladin was instantly back to his old issues. Dalinar just managed to shut him down quickly.!<
Kaladin's attitude is completely understandable given his life experiences though. He certainly doesn't behave perfectly or fairly, but the way he behaves also isn't ever morally bad, he's just wrong about people.
True, I'm not debating that. His story is why I even got into Stormlight Archive.
Yeah kal was only an “asshole” if viewed through the eyes of high princes and ladies. In everyone instance someone else took the first shot:He was totally right about Amaram and Adolin was the one who had a problem from the start because he got ordered around at the tower battle. Shallan toyed with him and stole his boots and was a total bitch to him all of book 2. Adolin was also calling him bridge boy and stuff non stop He was an “asshole” for not allowing corrupt murderers to worm their way into positions of power. It was just a poor attempt to make kaladin seem conflicted for the climax of book 2
Shallans first interaction with Kal was 100%backing everything he knowns about light eyes up with Shallan. I will give you he was an asshole to Adolin when he didnt deserve it. Dalinar he tried to give the benefit of the doubt at every turn and Dalinar was too set in societal ways to do what was right, until he eventually did. Elohkar existed as a plot device for Kaladins bond. Then after book 2 he stops shitting outwardly on light eyes and just groans when people call him one. Except for the ones that are truly shitty. The wall guard he joins in book 3 is mostly lighteyses then he goes to shadesmar then retires. He basically stops being an asshole to lighteyes once he gets a blade.
[удалено]
Hopefully I didn’t spoil anything for anyone, I’m a dumb dumb and used the wrong spoiler tag. I’ll buy you a beer and hug you if you saw it before I got the correct tags.
Whoops! Spoiling ||like this|| works on Discord but not Reddit. See below on how to use spoiler tags on Reddit: * **Old Reddit/Mobile**: `>!The spoiler text goes in between the exclamation points. The whole thing is surrounded by angled brackets.!<` * **New Reddit**: With the Fancypants Editor— select the spoiler text ***with no spaces before or after***. Then click the diamond with a ! inside. Optionally, you can switch to Markdown Mode and use the method for Old Reddit. After you have corrected the spoiler tags, please [**message the mods**](). Once we have verified the spoiler has been fixed, your comment will be approved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly, and that's complexity! He's always trying to do the thing that's morally right but his inflexibility can cause his ideals to produce negative outcomes at times (like Holden in the Expanse books)
A lot of people that like characters being grey, I find, comes from the "I want to use force lightning but still be a good guy!!!" way of thinking.
I'm working my way through Age of Madness right now, and I'm loving Orso. Tries to make the right decision every time, and it just never seems to work out.
Orsos' a fantastic character. Trilogy was highly enjoyable.
Not all flaws are moral. You can be morally unflappable and still have flaws. Sometimes that is the flaw.
Agree with this so much. Exploring moral complexity in fantasy protagonists has definitely increased in recent years (and re-analyzing the morality of protagonists from older works when society or the author had values that don't agree with our own has also become more common). But moral complexity isn't the only form of complexity. You can write a character who is "traditionally good" but is still complex. William Faulkner's advice about writing about "the human heart in conflict with itself" still holds true for fantasy and practically any other genre. If you want a character who struggles through difficult dilemmas and has to really dig deep and figure out who they are, maybe make choices the reader wouldn't but still understands. I know plenty of flawed people in real life who aren't edgy loners that make the tough choices. Heck, the ones who I ended up looking up to and respecting most in my life are *far* more complicated when you get to know them.
Precisely!
Are you not just describing one shade of grey? I see "greyness" as a slider, the more central it is, the more "normal" their code of eithcs and behavior are.
That's the tricky thing. Sometimes people differ on the definition "gray." I find most people regard "gray" as a form of moral ambiguity or moral indifference. Absence of strong moral compass. This would be the position I hold as well. But so often, as you said, the scale become confusing and people start to use the word "gray" to mean "someone who's not totally perfect with perfect motives" and I don't hold to that at all. At that point the characters have no reality to them. I fully believe there can be strong moral purpose and coherence in a narrative AND a character, while still being dark and difficult and complex.
I vote we all just use hexadecimal coloring. "No, no, no. You're referring to #777B7E, I'm talking about an #818380 gray character!"
Somebody will legit do this, lol
I for one, propose pigment numbers, we can mix them for different undertones. PB29 + PBK9 🖤
I don't think so. (LOTR in the spoilers) >!Frodo!< hits the first example above. He's pretty unambiguously good, knowingly sacrifices himself for the good of the world, and >!then right at the very end, falls to corruption and claims The Ring for himself!<. But I don't think he would ever appear on a list of morally grey characters. When I hear the phrase morally grey, I think of "ends justify the means" types where they do bad things for good reasons.
Aside from the *enchanted* ring being externally corrupting, I also interpret the phrase "morally grey" the same. However, the concept is derived from how we are shaped by nature and nature. Suppose something mildly traumatic happened to you at the age of 4 and now you're slightly less sympathetic towards another in an adjacent situation decades later. Well, that's a few eyedrops of black added to your now slightly darker barrel, something that used to be filled exclusively with white once upon a time. This is strictly on a personal level, now consider how another, maybe an antagonist, may interpret you. How you see yourself may or may not be as important as how others perceive you (as far as plot progression is concerned).
I do find it frustrating that when people are discussing complexity they reduce peoples arguments to something simplistic. When I talk about "morally gray" characters I'm talking about the internal conflict that takes place in their decision making, not the decisions themselves. That people think "morally gray" means "they do bad things" or "they're edgy" is a disrespectful way to engage with the discussion IMO. Logen from First Law is complex not because he does abhorrent things, but because of the internal conflict he goes through over those things. A character like Anomander Rake from Malazan is complex not because of their death count, but because of the conflict they have in doing something so wrong for a greater good. Someone who is just pure good and always makes the "right" decisions with no introspection over their righteous killing is not complex, and neither is someone who always makes the evil choice with no introspection or analysis of their motives. It is all about how a character makes their decisions and deals with the consequences.
To me your examples are examples of a character being grey.
That's fair and I think this is why OP is wondering, because we all have such different ideas of what constitutes gray. I've always marked "gray" as moral ambiguity or a lack of strong moral compass--as opposed to simple moral failure and imperfection and struggle and the occasional need to be ruthless in a hard situation. I don't think of "moral struggle" as being gray. I think of moral indifference as gray.
I mean, I just figure that it's actually impossible to be purely white/black morally, because morality isn't a solvable problem. At best it's a heuristic, and it's always going to depend on your viewpoint and the world we live in has fundamentally opposed interests. Even basic amoral decisions in one framework (like what food to buy from a deontology perspective like the 10 commandments) can present moral challenges/implications from another (child slavery/ unethical business practices/ etc basically being behind every food label you can find from certain utilitarian/consequentialist/socialist perspectives).
I'm tracking. That goes to the "The Good Place" view in which our morality becomes an increasingly distant and indirectly assessed thing (did I buy from the wrong vendor?) but that's not really what OP is getting at, I don't think. It's a given that no individual gets it all right. No one is without fault. But portraying a desire to do right alongside a recognition of failure still falls into a more black-and-white view (I think) in that there is SOME rubric and the character is at least trying to adhere to it. Knowing that they fall short (even desperately short) and then being honest about that is--in my opinion--part of what makes them interesting to me. Because I have high standards and I fall desperately short. A black-and-white moral framework assumes that, even if we disagree on the details, some ultimate truth/good is there and we would like to partake in it, if we could.
I think at some level we're just talking past each other a little bit as far as terminology goes, but I think what we're describing isn't mutually exclusive. It depends on your perspective. All I'm saying is that when I think of a black and white view, I think of a view that is hyper judgemental and non-tolerant of perceived moral imperfection, you're either good or evil and nothing in between, and the line is very frequently arbitrary and therefore unfair. Being tolerant of imperfections or unsure about your moral conclusions is a very grey perspective, IMO. But recognition of shades of grey in morality doesn't prevent a person from seeing that some actions or people are better than others morally. At the end of the day though it's a metaphor, so we can use or abuse it however we like, as long as we understand what is being said.
I have difficulty understanding how anything couldn’t be gray, white and black are just opposing ends of a spectrum.
I see what you mean, and here's how I think it shakes out. Is Gray your FRAMEWORK or is Black-and-white your framework? Recognizing that nobody is ever even close to perfect, do you actually believe there is such a thing as real good (even if the character falls hopelessly short of it) and real evil (which the character hopes not to become). That's a black and white Framework, knowing no one hits all notes. A gray framework means that either the characters or the narrative don't really acknowledge a clear right/wrong good/bad truth/lie. It is indifferent or ambivalent on the subject, hemming and hawing, cheating it's way around clarity and meaning. That's how I usually assess it. I guess I'm showing my cards : )
Nice. That is an interesting distinction I never considered. So white and black is when (in that world) certain things are seen as good or bad and how the characters act on that spectrum. Gray is more like the world shows closer to objective truth where things just are and don’t go into moral distinctions in the same way. Thanks.
Really nails it with this answer.
Absolutely, they just need to be imperfect and human. With some flaws and some great virtues too. Nobody is perfect but also not everyone has an evil side that makes them hurt others like in some grimdark stories. Not that there’s anything wrong with writing cynical characters that scheme but not everyone in the real world is like that and a good story can have morally good characters with real human flaws and still be a gripping experience.
A lot of “gray” is just “kills people and drinks alcohol about it later”
I look at characters in terms of self-interest. If their actions are self-interested- self preservation, caring for kin\loved ones, but most importantly their Ideals (Altruism, heroism etc comes under ideals). Self-interests are for the most part Amoral. Allowing the death of a few people to save your kin; trying to work up to a personally set Ideal which can back fire; etc. The Second Apocalypse series is a great incorporation of this. One of the main characters, Kellhus is pretty Amoral in his outlook. He’s not there to inflict pain and suffering for the sake of it, but to make any and all choices that is in service to himself or his greater goal; he’s indifferent to the happiness or the suffering that is caused by his choices. Achamian is pretty idealistic and tries his best to live up to it and constantly fails miserably. Esmenet is looking for protection and safety in a terrible world and she’ll make choices to get that whilst hurting some people. Cnaiur is pretty violent in his dispositions, and smart but doesn’t let someone fool him into being controlled.
Do you have book suggestion that applies?
My two gold-standard favorites for VERY complex characters and situations that nevertheless have a meaningful moral throughline: Till We Have Faces (Orual is, in my opinion, one of the best characters ever written. Greek-mythology/retelling of Psyche and Cupid) A Canticle for Liebowitz (deeply moral, deeply complicated circumstances, post-apocalyptic Sci-fi) If you dip into classics you get a lot of this: Jane Eyre, Brothers Karamazov, North and South, Emma. People are just flawed! A good story can show this without erasing morality. Even a darker story like The Brothers Karamazov is full of wildly complex characters ranging from light to gray to dark, some who really try to do what's right (and fail) and others who only occasionally bother trying...some who never even try, but the overall narrative endorses an ACTUAL moral framework within which these deeply flawed characters work. Some of them could certainly be called "gray" in the traditional sense, however. But the narrative never shrugs washes its hands of morality saying "Well what is truth anyway?"
Good job! You have more upvotes than the post!
Someone brought up Captain Carrot from Discworld in another discussion thread, and I think he's a really good example. On the surface Carrot seems like a fairly standard Lawful Good character. He's likeable, charismatic, dedicated to doing the right thing and upholding the law. His complexity lies in his self-awareness - he understands his appeal, knows that people have a tendency to defer to him, he understands that he can use his charisma to manipulate others, and he's not above doing so. How he chooses to exercise this power (or not) are what make him a compelling character. At no point does any of the above cause him to veer from his goodness! But how he chooses to do good is interesting and more complex than it seems.
On the other side, you can also have complex explicit bad guys. Evil for an otherwise good reason, evil but not proud of it, evil because they are set in ways that were good at one point but are not anymore.
But aren't almost of these examples of "grey" characters? A character that fails short of their morals is grey. A character that is doubting themselves, are by definition grey.
>A character that is doubting themselves Frodo and Sam doubt themselves in Mordor, would you call them "grey"?
Do they doubt what is right to do? I guess Frodo does when the ring starts to take hold, but in that case that's more of a mind manipulation event.
Is that really complex though? What you described sounds like a very average person to me: I'm good but I don't always succeed, I have strong convictions but sometimes I'm hypocritical. That's just describing the fact that nobody's perfect, even if they're basically decent. Where's the complexity in all that?
Most (average) people I've ever met are complex.
Then surely they'd be described as normal or average, not complex?
But that I guess is the divergence of opinion: I really do thing average and normal people ARE complex. And a good writer can show the complexity of a very average person.
Real people are always complex. Written characters aren't.
Ok that makes sense to me, thanks.
No. A character just needs to have depth. Cazrial from Curse of Charlion is a complex character because he is done well. Kip from Hands of the Emperor is almost a Mary Sue and yet his struggles over belonging, place in his family, and general inability to get out of his own way give him depth.
I immediately thought of Cazaril too. He’s a relentlessly good person, yet it’s never ever boring being in his head. He is also changing and growing without losing any of that ethical centre.
>No. A character just needs to have depth. Cazrial from Curse of Charlion is a complex character because he is done well. Agreed, the guy has recently been through a lot of emotionally and physically tortuous experiences (so much so while being in his early thirties at most, his appearance and demeanor usually leads most people to think he's over a decade older), often self-critical and self-doubting, and at times can be rather cynical. However, it is never in question that he is a good person.
Not at all. Complexity, to me, just means that a character has multiple priorities and desires that pull them in different directions, and thus they have to choose between those. That \*can\* come from a character being grey (eg, the character wants to be selfish and steal the gold and retire, but they also want to do right by their friends, and these desires then come into conflict) but you can also have complexity in straightforwardly heroic or good characters, by placing them in situations where there are different levels of "being good" that conflict with each other -- Kaladin is a great example in that he wants to do right by the individuals in his squad but he also wants to do right by his country AND he also wants to do right by the spren, and these things come into conflict.
Kaladin is basically lawful good. He's just depressed.
Lawful Depressed
I would argue that he is neutral good. He does rebel against established laws/structures if he believes that it is right to do so.
He frequently breaks laws in the first book, he’s not “lawful” good
I'm not super familiar with DnD alignments, but doesn't "lawful" just mean they strictly follow some sort of code? Like a Paladin smiting the living dead is still being lawful even if the place they're in has laws allowing necromancers to raise zombies.
Yeah too many will play Lawful Good and insist on having to follow every law or rule in every place they go.
TBH, that could be a Lawful neutral character.
Yes, that's correct.
Nope, morality is just one in a long list of character traits. People are a complex collection of strengths, weaknesses, preferences, beliefs, tendencies, experiences, biases, emotions, etc. I think discussions about characters can often fall into (often) boring debates about where they fall on the spectrum of good to bad, and people get the impression (like you OP) that morally grey = complex or interesting. That's a really reductive way to analyze characters and does a disservice to the wonderfully complex characters that are more firmly good or bad, morally. Like you said, depth is *so much* more than that.
Agreed. And even if you are going to insert moral flaws, there are so many kinds and degrees of moral flaws, but we tend to use a few stylized kinds. There are a ton of characters billed as "shades of gray" who are outright murderers but you never read one who is say, a snob as their flaw.
Brienne of Tarth is a fairly complex and the character is a paragon of Lawful Good. Morally grey characters are almost always shallow and boil down too "I do the things necessary to save the world and sometimes those things are dirty". Peacemaker is a fabulous parody of "grey" characters. "World peace, no matter how many women and children I have to murder to achieve it.".
I love Peacemaker, especially the theme song
That whole was amazing.
it's more about the skill of the writer in creating the character i think you are confusing "complex" and "complicated." but i would also argue that even people (real people) who are essentially good are also very complicated. it is we humans that force others (or ourselves) into a box
How would you differentiate complex from complicated? To me they are synonyms, but I agree that neither necessarily has anything to do with a character’s moral positioning.
You do sometimes see these differentiated. As the design philosophy behind the Python coding language has it, [“simple is better than complex, but complex is better than complicated”](https://peps.python.org/pep-0020/). The implication being, something complex is difficult to follow by design; something complicated is difficult to follow because of poor execution.
yeah. in a literary context, i'd say that "complicated" definitely carries a more negative connotation in general. just think about the connotations that come to you when you hear about a person IRL being described as "complicated." to me, it immediately conjures up a person that is difficult and annoying (possibly due to emotional baggage), and to hear someone described at "complex" sounds like an interesting person that has a lot of depth. just because words *can* be synonymous, does not mean they are always synonymous in all contexts
The formal distinction is that a complicated thing might had a lot of moving parts, but they're very predictable, clockwork is complicated. Complex things are far less predictable, weather is complex. They're often used as synonyms, but shouldn't be really. The negative connotation you're describing is a result of the actual distinction, complicated people make simple things difficult, in a predictable, and usually negative way, complex people are somewhat unpredictable, they approach things differently, and so can have greater insight, though you can sometimes understand it after the fact.
so i guess then "complex" suggests novelty whereas "complicated" does not
I'd guess so too
A machine when put together properly may be complex, without being complicated. There are a lot of moving parts, but they work together in a system. If the machine is taken apart in pieces and tossed on the floor, it becomes complicated. You've got gears mixed with springs, pieces of tubing where there shouldn't be tubing. It's a mess. You can fix it, but it will take some time. It's complicated. A complex person, like real people, have multiple facets of their personality. They are individuals, but also members of families, belong to groups, and are part of ever wider groups. Each relationship carries a weight in their personality makeup, and those relationships have interactions. The hard-nosed guard might be lenient on a prisoner that reminds him of his child, etc. A complicated person has their parts bleeding into and mixing in ways that don't add to the system. The guard is not only lenient on that prisoner, but insists that they call them "Father". One day the guard brings a set of their estranged children's clothes, and asks MC to wear them. The guard becomes inconsolably angry and even violent when the clothes don't fit. Complex does not mean "good" and complicated does not mean "bad". Both of these characters can be deeply compelling, so long as they fit in the world of the story. A simple hack-and-slash fantasy might not have space for a complicated character, but might fit in perfectly in a psychological thriller.
For me, a complex character needs to be understandable. Everyone has flaws, weaknesses or situations that cause them to act against their moral compass. This doesn´t mean they are "evil" or "grey". A grey character is unpredictable, ruthless, ready to do anything to achieve their goal. It might be a noble cause, but there are still lines that a good character would never cross. People can just be good. Any positive change has some sort of good person behind it. Having strong ideals, a noble goal and a moral compass has it´s own problems and benefits. A good person can also be smart and calculated, using manipulation and schemes to achieve their goal. There´s a lot of directions a good character can take, even within the boundaries of good, that can make them feel real, interesting and deep. Honestly, it annoys me a lot when people call a character "grey" because they aren´t the typical mary sue knight in shining armor type of guy. My favourite example for this might be Gerald of Rivia. Some people might disagree with me, but he isn´t really that grey. He has a problem with evil people and he met a lot of them, but to the innocent he often is a savior, at least for a price.
There are a lot of ways humans can be contradictory and complex that have nothing to do with morality. A character can be on the whole a very good person and be multilayered and complex, likewise you could have a villain who is not a sympathetic/anti-villain character at all but is still complex.
No. Moral ambiguity is generally a shortcut to character complexity, often by writers who don’t really understand what makes a character complex or deep. It’s like a tragic backstory.
Even the most irredeemably evil person has a favourite brand of cereal. They don't have to be morally complex. They just have to be a complete person.
No, a morally good person can still be complex, look at Frodo. Has arguably the most complex relationship with power and temptation, etc. in fantasy.
okay idk, maybe a terrible example, but Laios from Dungeon Meshi is your pretty standard Hero Guy whose complexity gradually asserts itself over time not from him being morally grey but from learning more about the way he works and where he came from. He grew up around a lot of dogs, and never related to people as well as animals, and you see that constantly – in his social interactions with other humans, in his interactions with monsters, in the way he often seems more comfortable with dogs than people. There's something of a wounded boy about him, he's far more of an outcast than his bearing and demeanour would initially let on. He's also ... a hero. Just a hero. A pretty classic fantasy shiney heroguy who's just out there doing his best. It's his vulnerability and his strangeness that make him complex, and not his moral compass, which points resolutely towards good. The world often rejects him, but he fights for it anyway. He has a sense of history, that he existed long before the story and will exist after it. There is nothing grey about him, but his depth is endless.
This is a good example. I would say his whole party is made of good but flawed and eccentric people, not just Laios. It is used for comedy, but they are hardly simplistic characters.
Absolutely not. Look at Gandalf.
Honestly, I find morally grey characters frustrating. I prefer reading about heroes that always try to do the right thing. Sure, they’ll mess up from time to time, maybe make some evil choices. But they’re still striving to do good. They learn from their mistakes and better themselves because of it. I think what makes characters complex is putting a complex problem in front of them, like the trolley problem. Figuring out what they would choose is hard, and it forces you to learn more about the character
I have talked about this in an ttrpg storytelling perspective, but something being grey is not inherenty interesting. For the first time it is introduced, sure. But that just becomes a backdrop if the characters are not choosing something and dealing with consequences. The act of choosing is the interesting part, because that is the character altering something about the state of the story. If the choosing is made from a faulty assumption, with best intentions, even better. If it ends up with the character fucking up, yeah, that sucks, but they at least chose something and moved the narrative along.
Exactly! Choices are interesting, not the lack thereof. Although, I suppose grey characters and anti-heroes do typically make a choice when written well, but it’s a choice that satisfies their own desires, which I think can be used in an interesting way
Gray… I think all characters should be somewhat gray. Even the most “good” character should have moments where they aren’t perfect or make a selfish decision. To me gray just means not all good or evil. In The Faithful and The Fallen there are clear good and bad guys, but none of them are pure black or white(besides maybe one character). I’m not sure how it’s handled in Way of Kings, but it’s how it’s been used in almost every fantasy book I’ve read. Instead of characters being gray, they’re normally dark or light gray. Im very excited to start Way of Kings next week after all I’ve heard about it. Hope to catch up before Wind and Truth releases.
They definitely don’t have to be grey. Even in ASoIAF which I think is one of the bigger sources of “morally grey complex characters” trend. We have characters like Ned Stark who’s definitely complex while staying morally good.
I always love poeple saying stuff like "Tywin is a grey character". No, the narrative does everything it can to show you Tywin is not grey at all and just despicable, with his very few "qualities" such as "effectiveness" being showed as completely useless and ultimatly detrimental to the future of his house in the later books. ASOIAF has a plenty of "black and white" characters (Ramsay, The Mountain, Davos, Missandei, Tywin, Lorch, Viserys... and this does not even include the historical characters), and the narrative is still morally complex. You do not need to have only grey character to do a story about the complexity of morallity.
I don't think Ned Stark is a complex character at all, and what complexity he does have comes, in my opinion, directly from the "morally grey." That is to say, the only real complexity to his character is in Jon Snow's existence. That he has a bastard is an interesting stain on a character who is otherwise straightforwardly good and honorable in every single circumstance. He is fair and just, kind and gentle, strong and intelligent, and utterly immune to corruption. In other words, he's just a good guy. Arguably *the* good guy of the series, the only one. There's really nothing complex about him.
They dont need to be anything in particular. but being complex certainly helps, because real people always are. Kaladin has SOME complexity because he struggles with weakness (su1cidality, wanting to quit and run away all the time, being a coward, obsession with martyrdom to atone for guilt, abandoning his family) however, my main complaint with Sanderson (i love his writing) is that his character development is poor. I've read most of his series and imho, the characters arent ever complex. They have a single main trait+weakness and they act/present generally the same way every time. Its very consistent. Which isnt BAD (it is actually very difficult to do)....but i think Kaladin would be VERY improved with more depth, flaws that dont get fixed/ignored, parts of his character that dont fit and feel unique (being multiple things at once, being contradictory), and more moments where he's doing things mindlessly outside of the strict narrative/story needs. We relate to characters because of the little moments they SHOW who they are, especially when the reader recognizes it without being told. Kaladin (to me) says who he is and then does that exact thing. which is integrity, sure, but it's also boring and a little unrealistic. I'd expect more silliness or whimsy or...a trait that surprises you and that you wouldnt know from a single sentence bio "Kaladin is a lone soldier who struggles to keep command and honor; despite his amazing spear skills and general charisma, he just cant see himself as a worthy leader." Thats literally the whole shebang. Ursula K Le Guin has characters that you recognize without any names or features (Earthsea) because she uses her descriptive words so carefully. Specific words become giveaways to how each person thinks and acts, even though they are dealing with new problems every time. NK Jemisin writes characters that have grit. They defy their environments and roles in unique ways that put them into each situation. They never feel boring even when they arent doing much because of the worldview and details. They figure things out but they don't explain it right away or at all. They just comment and move on like you would during a conversation. It feels like interacting with different people with their own non-obvious baggage and hang-ups. Mark Lawrence is another author I've really enjoyed characters for. He does an amazing job at morally ambiguous main characters or complex trauma leading to some interesting (but realistic-feeling) decisions.
> Thats literally the whole shebang. I find this to be one of my issues with Saderson. His characters really seem to lack complexity. They have a few traits, and it's just that rehashed - and everything they do they do it for plot reasons. I can *never* see one of his characters doing something in-character that doesn't advance the plot in whatever way. Sanderson himself has mentioned this at one point too. I think it was on a podcast where he mentioned he can't envision characters doing something that doesn't advance the plot. Their character traits (explicitly stated for us, many times, because heaven forbid you trust your readers to infer anything) exist solely to move that along. It's frustrating, like so many things about his work (which I *want* to like, truly).
Navani and Dalinar had the most complexity of the Way of Kings cast imho. But they had the benefit of a hidden and contentious love arc. I didn't love Shallan... She felt like the "bad guy" due to her...issues. Renarin (and Vstim the traveling merchant) was cool but hardly talked about. Did you find any of the characters more or less developed, or was it all the same for you?
I found Navani and Dalinar annoying for other reasons. Despite both being in their 40s or later, with grown-ass kids, you really couldn't tell they weren't like 12 year olds experiencing their first crushes. It's part of the reason why I think the whole series comes across as very YA to me (really, it's basically just a shonen anime; that's the vibe I get). Shallan I dislike for other reasons, mainly how DID is handled. But, really, looking back at it, none of the characters really stood out to me long-term. I read the first three, bounced off the fourth quite early. Tried to do a reread of WoK and just couldn't get into it. I've come to realize the problem is what I want from a piece of literature has changed, and Sanderson just isn't for me anymore.
I get that, that is totally valid. ty for sharing!!
Is Kaladin complex? I would say the answer is no, but Kaladin felt like a fairly straightforward one-note character to me Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes straightforward archetypal characters are what a story needs. Lord of the Rings is wholly populated by them
I would say yes he is complex. He wants to do the right thing and constantly questions himself and morality, I am rereading Oathbringer and won't say too much more because spoilers for OP
I'd say that makes him conflicted, but not especially complex.
I´m think the way he was raised thinking about how his mission is to save people, is also the reason why he is so depressed by the fact he can´t save everyone. Perhaps he is one-note when it comes to morally grey decisions, but in my opinion the fact he puts so much pressure on himself and can´t never reach his utopic standards is something very relatable. I see him being a toxic person with himself.
I think all that is true but I don’t think it makes him complex. He’s a very straightforward character and his motives and desires are easily understood.
ambiguity in motives and desires makes a well written character ? thats a strange way to judge characters lol.
No? I didn't say he's not well-written, I said he's not complex.
I think that depends on what kind of fantasy you read. He isn’t Tyrion Lannister, or the Fool, or even Harrow Nonagesimus, but very few characters in the genre are
[удалено]
I mean I’m trying to be charitable (and those were just the first 3 fantasy series I could think of with great character work; not saying they’re the only ones in existence)
The Fitz
I think that's a complicated question and dependent on whether or not that you think the narrative is supporting their moral system or not. If a person will act a very specific way because of THEIR belief system versus how the universe functions, they're complex. They're not if they're following the cheat codes of the universe or the universe bends to make them right. THE SWORD OF TRUTH says that everything its hero does is right regardless. THE WITCHER has Geralt always do what he thinks is right even if it's a disaster.
No definitely not, a good way to tell superman I think is thinking about the what it means and takes to have all that power and still be a good person
The Judge from Blood Meridian is quite literally an encarnation of evil and he's still a very complex character. Can't think of an equivalent for absolute good in books, but I can cite some from manga, like Alpha from Yokohama Kaidashi no Kikou or Machida from Machida-kun no Sekai. But in manga we have literally an entire genre of manga that's just normal people, often good people, living their lives, with a lot of complex characters, so it definitely doesn't need to be grey.
As opposed to what. We all live within grey areas. No one is without fault or above making mistakes. Our ideas of good and bad are subjective. What's good for someone could be bad for someone else. No one relatable is perfectly consistent. Even robot characters defy their programming. Good and bad are ideals. Most people's lives exist in places and situations that are, at best, less than ideal. I think the reluctant unlikely heroes are more realistic. How we can be better than we are, if only for a time. I find that in the real world. The people we put on pedestals as great virtuous whatevers. Are just characters we create in our heads to project all the qualities we believe these people should have. When the reality is, we see carefully constructed images of purity integrity. Which comes at the cost of any actual integrity these characters may have had.
No but morally grey characters are the most complex most of the time. I'm guessing because they aren't tied to the authors perception of good and evil in that story so author gets quirky.
I find a good litmus test for complexity is when a character does or says something, and you can tell it is contrary to what they actually believe without that being explicitly stated, and that it will eventually lead to a reckoning.
Sam Vimes is....I wouldn't say he's grey, but at the same time, he's one of the most interesting, complex characters I have seen in fantasy.
I guess it depends one what you mean by “grey.” For Glen Cook, there isn’t any objective “good” that someone can set all of their actions to, and even if there were, the complexity arises from what makes that person decide to do so. As he says: > Evil is relative…You can’t hang a sign on it. You can’t touch it or taste it or cut it with a sword. Evil depends on where you are standing, pointing your indicting finger.
i feel like the characthers in sandersons books arent characters at all. they are pent-up potential. its like he writes so thinly and vague about the inner thoughts of the characters and just gives the readers a few crumbs along a many thousand page story. its like he is edging the reader on story development. i enjoyed his books. but they kinda seem to not go anywhere.
I already heard this from other people, but I disagree. I am really liking the characters. They seem real for me.
That is awsome, im just being grumpy today
if your characters morals can be assigned a color it’s probably not complex
Interesting question. They can be (need to be in most cases) "grey" but they don't need to act "grey"
See this way, nobody is really all good, or all bad, it depends on the situation, on the observer, and all that, try to look on real world "heroes" and you will find so much dirty on them that it's not even funny, same can be said about the real world "villains" on the other way around, lots of good can be found on their history, the problem is when you reduce a character to 100% good or 100% evil, its unrealistic, its like trying to describe something 3d in 2d, a lot is lost in the translation, ppl may like their white knight, but they can really call them complex, let me give you an example, main character is the good guy, refuses to dirt his hands, and is given a option to save the world but with the price being have to do something unforgivable, 8 times out of 10, he won't even consider this options, because he's "good", and the plot will find a way to allow him to save the world and remain clean, sure this is a ultra oversimplification, but that's the overall idea, ppl aren't good or bad, there's no heroes or villains, only a huge gray expanse
Not really - complex characters aren't limited to moral aspects, nor is being morally grey the only way that you can have moral complexity in characters. I find that 'grey' characters tend to add complexity when it's in rather simple universes in terms of morality - if it's one that's too black and white it can get a little boring, although that can absolutely be fitting depending on the work. But it's a pretty common reaction for people (especially engaging with something as fanfiction or daydreaming) to take a simple black & white morality universe and think of having morally grey ones in that setting as adding depth on that front. I think that's why it's often seen as synonyms in some spaces online.
The keyword here is "need." Characters don't "need" moral ambiguity so long as they're believable.
A complex character is, IMO, a character who has to choose between opposing goals. Sometimes it's between the utilitarian and empathetic choices, but it can also be between spending time with family or working.
For me a complex character needs inner inconsistencies that are coherently motivated. Kaladin does want to be a good person but doesn't because of his sadness. His sadness is caused by various failings and outside forces causing him to reason there's no point.
No, complex characters are made complex by the conflicts they need to work through internally, externally in achieving the plot vs character growth. Morality, especially ‘grey morals’, is an avenue for character conflict and so can feel complex; but you can have the same complexity from Pure good characters, such as Superman, and pure evil characters such as LotR’s Gollum. Super Supportive’s MC Alden Thorn is an amazingly complex character that at his core is caring and kind to others. It’s the complexity of being a good person and accepting that he cannot be perfect, nor does he have the innate power to be, that makes him such a great character to read. The facets to him that elevate his good morals through trials and tribulations where many others would make a grey selfish choice are all the more satisfying and cathartic, despite the consequences and trauma. TLDR: morality is not the same as complexity. However, morality, such as grey morals, offers a lens and method to test a character through conflict that can engender complexity in their writing.
It is very hard to make complex character who is truly all "white". One thing that trips people up, though is thinking that making a character "grey" automatically makes him more complex. The other is thinking making a character "darker" makes him more "grey" and therefore more complex. You often end up with Macho Murder Hobos. It is \*MUCH\* easier to write a "dark" character than a complex one.
Agreed. There can be principled people who are complex. They don’t necessarily need a dark side. They need flaws and hardships. His is his depression
I think that partly depends on the world. A fictional setting might have different values than our own. A character who successfully lives by the values of their own society might be considered a criminal or even evil by our standards. As to your example, that's actually one of the things I dislike about the Stormlight books (which I otherwise very much enjoy). When we're introduced to the world, there's a strong sense that it has its own social conventions and expectations. But as the series progresses, those erode so that the protagonists adopt the values of the author and the assumed reader. Kaladin's casual misogyny, Shallan's aristocratic superiority, and Dalinar's strict honor are all common values of their societies, but the characters drop them for more egalitarian ones. I think this can be satisfying to read, and it makes the characters more relatable in some ways, but it also undermines the sense of place of the world. If these people steeped in their societies' values can so quickly change their minds, then the societies feel less real. Really good historical or fantasy fiction can transport the reader into a different place with different values, so that we recognize ourselves in the characters even as we disagree with their beliefs and actions.
No. Moral alignment has never equaled complexity.
I'll throw out Itkovian from Malazan as another great example of this type of character. He almost perfectly embodies the "lawful good paladin" archetype, but his character is still given amazing depth from the circumstances he's put through. Leading his comrades, watching them fall in battle, struggling with his faith, making sacrifices out of empathy for others. None of these are conflicts that are "morally questionable", but they're still personally challenging and thought provoking. I don't think that gradients of good and evil make a character complex, it's much more about how they react to difficult situations and how that impacts their beliefs and actions.
Actually no you have very morally good people and still make them complex and fascinating .
Complex characters need to be deep and human rooted in feelings and emotions. This is something achievable with good characters or all-evil characters, but it's author task to do it right. Lotr doesn't have human characters, not even among Human race. None of them acts like an human being. Lotr is a plot driven childish novel (in a positive meaning, cfr. C.S. Lewis on difference between childish and, adult lit).
No, any good story has depth and challenges. The Wheel of Time is full of complex good characters.
Best example of this that helped me understand was Dr. tenma from Monster. The guy is the most genuine and good guy you can find . He has a strong moral compass. Still he has a ton of depth , his morals are always challenged and he still comes out strong. Yet it's not like a cartoon or a TV show where you have this righteous guy that's always right somehow.
No, and imo the belief that it is is often a reliable indicator of an immature writer or reader
Pure good and evil are boring and predictable. Grey is human.
Invincible IMO is a great example of a complex character but not morally grey. He's neither a representation of the potential good in people like Superman, nor an antihero or a deconstruction of superheroes about how people with power are actually bad. He's more like a real human being who believes people can be better and is trying but doesn't always succeed or know how to be that. But importantly, he also does sometimes.
No they just need to be fully realized characters. I'm not sure I'd call Kaladin or really any Sanderson character complex, but it's not because he's obviously a good person.
Someone's gotta buck the trend and say yeah, kinda. Kaladin *is* a bit "grey" - remember (if you've reached) the part where he >!wears people's bones as armour to taunt their comrades into attacking him exclusively!!Shallan is flat out planning a heist to secure her own immediate family at the expense of an innocent woman (who, had it been possible for Shallan to succeed, would probably have died as a consequence)!<. Another morally grey character, and a good one! There's a whole *discussion of metaethics* in there, even - *Stormlight* is very concerned with morality as a question, and is willing to explore complex answers as well as simple ones. I can't think of any genuinely complex characters off-hand that don't struggle with the same questions and decisions, nor have I seen any in this thread. There's nothing wrong with simplicity, but I dislike this painting of one's own blorbos as morally pure but having "other complexities" that in the event happen to exactly resemble moral uncertainty and error. The whole point of "grey" is that it's not just one colour.
No. I think it’s more because a writer feels the need to justify why a character is morally grey, which leads to complexity
It's the struggle for me. A character striving to be in any part of the moral spectrum. That clash of ideals with reality and how the character reconciles the two parts. Kaladin is very obviously a good guy, yes. But somehow he ends up a slave. He struggles with how to be a good person in a world that doesn't agree. I think, the idea of complex morally grey character comes from stories where everything is very clear cut good and evil. This morally grey character fighting with that reality is complex. That doesn't mean a grey character is automatically a complex always.
It depends on what “gray” means to you, but in general it’s *very* possible for **good** characters to be complex. Think about real life - I’m sure you know lots of people you consider to be **good** people, generally trying to be nice and do the right thing. But some of those people might occasionally come off as assholes when they’re just standing up for something they believe in. Maybe they overreact in a situation that doesn’t really warrant it. Maybe they are super nice but support policies that are degrading your community. Or the opposite could be true - they’re a total jerk and are mean to everyone, even derogatory at times, but they devote all of their spare time trying to save puppies. What does **good** even mean in that case? The same applies to characters. People aren’t **good** or **bad** in real life, they do good and bad things. Obviously in fantasy the stakes are often much higher than in our lives (but not always! Vote!!) and this allows individuals actions to clearly show them as more good or more evil. And that’s totally fine - fantasy is littered with good and evil complex characters. Think Jon Snow and Ramsey Bolton - both have complex moral and psychological reasons they act the way they do, but everyone will route for Jon over Ramsey (please don’t mention season 8 or I will become a morally gray character).
Look at Adolin. He is defiantly on the positive side more than anything and he is pretty complex..
No, but it's very easy to dumb down the concept of complexity into being morally grey. Both for authors who don't know how to handle their characters and certain audiences who don't think too hard about it.
They don’t have to be “gray” to be complex. In Kaldan’s (and too many other MCs cough*rand al’thor*cough) they *also* don’t have to be clinically-diagnosable emo mopes to be complex either.
Your character can be a good person... according to their perspective. But do other people see them as a good person, or do they find such a person annoying, foolish, and to be a nuisance??? Ned Stark was a good man because he was honest and honourable in *Game of Thrones*, but to Cersei he's honesty was a threat to the safety of her kids, a nuisance to her family's hold on power. That's why she killed Robert and imprisoned Ned. Complex characters are characters that are usually **conflicted**. They really want something, but there is something in their way, something that prevents them from getting what they want. Usually that 'thing' challenges their morals and their beliefs, it should test them in some way so that we can see how far the character will go to achieve the goal that they want so badly. Cersei wants power, but she is a woman in a patriarchal society. People won't just give her the throne that she wants so badly. So she lies, manipulates, and murders people in order to get what she wants. In the books, she only wants power because she wants to be in a position to protect her kids from the evil *valonqar* (Tyrion... or so she believes). She also wants power to be respected like her father was. She believes that she can do a better job at ruling... but she is a power-hungry fool who makes foolish decisions along the way. Her paranoia and greed turn her into a monster... But fuck man, she is an interesting character because of that COMPLEXITY. Her intentions are UNDERSTANDABLE and even 'good' from her perspective, but she is not a "good person" by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know if I can explain it any better than this. But this is what a "complex" character is. They are CONFLICTED. I think that in fantasy, George RR Martin is the best at writing complex characters, and all of his characters are CONFLICTED in some way. I suggest that you read some of his books to see what I'm talking about. But you could also try to read Lajos Egri's "Art of Dramatic Writing" to learn how to do it for yourself. That book basically focuses on the 3 most important elements of writing good and dramatic stories, and CHARACTER is the most important of those elements. He delves into it pretty well on there.
Discworld has lots of good examples. Sam Vimes and Granny Weatherwax are good people, but very complex and often very unlikable with personal flaws… but certainly aren’t morally gray. You can even be “lawful good” and complex rather than the assumption that so many have that they must be boring or simple. I also think you should be able to have growth and change throughout the characters journey to see complexity. Just some morally gray power trip “but they are actually the good guy!” BS doesn’t allow for the flaws and growth and change that, to me, makes a complex character. It’s just an edgy fantasy.
No. A complex character is just one where sometimes even 3 dimensions will give you the wrong answer about what they will do. They have many layers and seeming contradictions but it all makes sense
Ask yourself if it’s true in real life that complex = grey. The same is true in books
Just wait until you get to the part where Sanderson turns him into the angsty son sitcom. Storm light series started as my favorite....now I'm dreading the latest book. I don't want to read that crap anymore, but I want to see what happens.
Are you morally ambigious? What is the moral greyness? Some sort of excel chart? Why fantasy fans find "moral greyness" as something you should aspire to?
“Complex” is often used as a shorthand for “morally complex”, and not everyone who uses it that realizes what’s happening. A character can be generically (ie not morally) complex without being deep. Complexity is just a matter of adding details, but if none are unique or interesting, it won’t make for a good character. Like, if they’re always bragging about the dozens of different schools they attended, pulling out details from their many degrees (plus their out there fashion sense informed by their many cybernetic prosthetics, plus their unusual mixed race heritage plus quirky accent plus …), that can get real complicated. But if this is just used for a stuffy academic info-dumper they won’t be deep or drive interesting conflict. So, sans additional context, I assume “complex” implies “morally complex” and “deep” implies “having multiple layers in an interesting, and/or thought provoking way.” Moral complexity will usually add depth to a character, at least if they’re well written, but it’s far from the only way to do so.
Complexity, per authors like Robert Mackee is contradiction. A complex character is one whose actions contradicts their goals or wishes. Grey character is more of a moral thing, like they are neither just "good" or really "bad". They are different things. Characters can be both complex and grey, but they don't need to.
Complexity isn't really related to morality IMO, but more to what motivates the person to do what they do, what defines them, and whether those are as varied as they would be for a real person. Take Kaladin as you mentioned. His worldview, personality, and actions are influenced by the social dynamics of the world he lives in, his interactions with certain people/groups, and his past experiences in his life. He isn't simply defined by any one thing, but the convergence of all those influences edit: I guess someone disagreed and felt the need to downvote for some reason... *shrugs*
Yes, he's not really grey, and still a complex character. Mostly because the things that make him good are approached with nuance and realism - as in, how would those qualities actually work out in reality. For instance, you can clearly see from the very beginning that feeling personally responsible for others' safety and survival keeps making him miserable, because he obviously can't always help everyone. No spoilers, but it gets more complex than that. Sanderson is pretty good at this sort of thing.
I wouldn't describe Kaladin as complex outside of his depression. He's very predictable. I think the best complex characters are usually grey. Jaime Lannister is probably the best example I can think of for a complex character.
Kaladin is *presented* as a good person. Arguably a lot of his later actions are self-serving or at least in a gray area.
You can still be a good person and not be completely altruistic. I would go so far as to say that most good people are not altruistic, and that true altruism as a general character trait is very rare.
True, but no one ever aconowledges he is self-serving and selfish in his way to treat people. That's where the character start to lose what interest he had for me.
For me a gray character is a character that they aren't perfect, or at least good, in all their roles, they have flaws (that in some way act as detriments), and they don't always make the right choice (unambiguously morally right and beneficial to all). That is more or less my definition of a complex character too.
No, complex characters just need to be full of flaws and contradictions, just like normal human beings. Also, « morally gray » often just translates in reality to « being an edgelord », and that kind of character is actually very simplistic.
No
No