Anti-heros: Are they all dicks?

[Saltyk]

Captain Jack Sparrow.
Lelouch from Code Geass.
Altair from Assassin's Creed.

Those spring to mind as anti-heroes.

I wouldn't call Altair an anti-hero. Maybe at the beginning, but fairly early in when he discovers there is a conspiracy going on, he wants to right things. He seems a little less conceited about it. He's not saving the world for his own benefit, atfirst he's trying to prove himself and then he's trying to save the world

Yeah, but how does it go about it? Sneaking around killing people. He kills multiple people throughout the game. Yes, it is for the greater good, but you have to admit that is not a heroic trait.

A "True Hero" would confront them directly and try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong, only killing these people when given no choice. Smart? No. Altair's method is much better in real life, but we're talking about heroes and anti-heroes.

And as you mention, at first he had no real interest in the greater good. It was just to prove himself. A major point of anti-heroes is that they do heroic deeds by unheroic methods.

Someone pointed out Batman. I was also thinking of him, too. His intentions are good, but his methods are larger against the heroic nature. Sneaking around using fear and intimidation against his foes.

But altair isan assassin, he can't simply walk up to the templar and speak to them. I suppose he does act "Immorally" by our regards, but don't forget this was set in a time where the templars were ebing right twats and oppressing the Kingdom in some religious holy war that God sent them on.

I don't know, I gueess in the end I've have to be on the fence for this one. Sure he's acting in what might be perceived as an unheroic fashion, but it's not like he has another way in which he can plausibly act

Oh, I'll agree that Altair acts in the best way he can, but he acts in an immoral way. I totally support his actions, but part of the point of the character, and the assassins in the game, is that they act in ways that others are unwilling or unable to for secure the greater good. Good intentions, but less than good actions.

But did you play the same game as me? The templars were using the Holy War for their own benefit. It wasn't the war that mattered, but what it allowed them to do. The templars weren't even religious. They were atheists if anything. Most people didn't even know this. In fact, I believe that the nations leaders were completely unaware of the actions or motivations of the templars. Or even that the templars were on both sides of the conflict manipulating it from the shadows.

Basically, Altair was the best and most heroic person in the game, but he wasn't a hero in the classic sense. Which is why I called him an anti-hero.

 

[Jaranja]

Captain Jack Sparrow.
Lelouch from Code Geass.
Altair from Assassin's Creed.

Those spring to mind as anti-heroes.

House from House MD

And since when was Alex Delarge an anti-hero?

He was a villain for christ's sake.

 

[Ampersand]

snip

This may be the case when it comes to the Ultimate series and others, but I still have fond memories of Venom occasionally doing the right thing to halt a greater evil. Spiderman does need help sometimes, you know.

Case and point:


"Surf the web! Surf the web!"

Yeah I wouldn't consider venom evil either, I think the only major flaw in his character is a sort of moral tunnel vision. He aims to do the right thing but he can't see who he hurts in the process. In other words, he'd carve his way through a crowded street to save a drowning puppy.

 

[Caligulove]

Jesse Custer, Tulip O'Hare, Cassidy from Preacher
They can all be TOTAL dicks, especially Cassidy- but they all have their moments where you find yourself relating to them.

 

[brunothepig]

Well, as said, there isn't much of an option. The cowardly kind of anti-heroes wouldn't work in a game, because the character might be cowardly, but the player is still gonna run straight at the bad guys.

I would have to disagree. Thief much???

Good point. But although it was a good character, and possibly one of the few games it did work, there were still potential problems. If the player felt like it (I did it for giggles sometimes) they could just rush at guards with swords, kill everyone they see, leave bodies in the middle of well lit rooms and wait for that guy that's patrolling to come along. None of those seem like cowardly acts, provoking a fight.
My point is, as well characterised as someone is, the player will almost always do something that doesn't ring true to the cowardly personality. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, it's always nice to see something new, but the character will fail slightly simply because they aren't in control. Problem with an interactive medium.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Captain Jack Sparrow.
Lelouch from Code Geass.
Altair from Assassin's Creed.

Those spring to mind as anti-heroes.

I wouldn't call Altair an anti-hero. Maybe at the beginning, but fairly early in when he discovers there is a conspiracy going on, he wants to right things. He seems a little less conceited about it. He's not saving the world for his own benefit, atfirst he's trying to prove himself and then he's trying to save the world

Yeah, but how does it go about it? Sneaking around killing people. He kills multiple people throughout the game. Yes, it is for the greater good, but you have to admit that is not a heroic trait.

A "True Hero" would confront them directly and try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong, only killing these people when given no choice. Smart? No. Altair's method is much better in real life, but we're talking about heroes and anti-heroes.

And as you mention, at first he had no real interest in the greater good. It was just to prove himself. A major point of anti-heroes is that they do heroic deeds by unheroic methods.

Someone pointed out Batman. I was also thinking of him, too. His intentions are good, but his methods are larger against the heroic nature. Sneaking around using fear and intimidation against his foes.

But altair isan assassin, he can't simply walk up to the templar and speak to them. I suppose he does act "Immorally" by our regards, but don't forget this was set in a time where the templars were ebing right twats and oppressing the Kingdom in some religious holy war that God sent them on.

I don't know, I gueess in the end I've have to be on the fence for this one. Sure he's acting in what might be perceived as an unheroic fashion, but it's not like he has another way in which he can plausibly act

Oh, I'll agree that Altair acts in the best way he can, but he acts in an immoral way. I totally support his actions, but part of the point of the character, and the assassins in the game, is that they act in ways that others are unwilling or unable to for secure the greater good. Good intentions, but less than good actions.

But did you play the same game as me? The templars were using the Holy War for their own benefit. It wasn't the war that mattered, but what it allowed them to do. The templars weren't even religious. They were atheists if anything. Most people didn't even know this. In fact, I believe that the nations leaders were completely unaware of the actions or motivations of the templars. Or even that the templars were on both sides of the conflict manipulating it from the shadows.

Basically, Altair was the best and most heroic person in the game, but he wasn't a hero in the classic sense. Which is why I called him an anti-hero.

As I said, they began to oppress the people and have their own agenda while on this holy war. It was a holy war going on, and the templars were a part of it, whether christian or athiest

 

[Ampersand]

V. From V for vendeta.
He was awesome.......and totally not a dick.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Try Sin City. Most of the anti heros in that are actually okay people...homicidal lunatics, but they tend to kill scumbags (not hard in to do in Basin City).

 

[RobCoxxy]

Arthur Dent.

MAD PROPS TO YOU, GOOD SIR.
Errr... other lovable Anti-heroes....
Han solo.
John Marston.
Ummm...

 

[biGBum333]

Captain Jack Sparrow.
Lelouch from Code Geass.
Altair from Assassin's Creed.

Those spring to mind as anti-heroes.

House from House MD

And since when was Alex Delarge an anti-hero?

He was a villain for christ's sake.

hes been numerously classified as an ''anti-hero''. but yeah i guess that point is kind of arguable...

 

[Jodah]

I dare you to call Stone Cold Steve Austin a dick.

I will do this when I get the chance.

Make sure you do, and make sure you sell the result as awesomely as this;
<youtube=WJqhGATgxek>

They just don't make 'em like they used to in the WWE anymore.

Amen. Once Undertaker is gone there is going to be little reason for me to watch anymore.

On topic : Being a douchebag anti-hero is just the easiest form to create. It is much harder to make a likable cowardly anti-hero. Usually when someone tries this they come over as a whiny ***** that should be smacked upside the head. I think of Felix in the Gotrek and Felix series of books. Sometimes he is likable but a lot of times he just whines too much.

 

[Jaranja]

Captain Jack Sparrow.
Lelouch from Code Geass.
Altair from Assassin's Creed.

Those spring to mind as anti-heroes.

House from House MD

And since when was Alex Delarge an anti-hero?

He was a villain for christ's sake.

hes been numerously classified as an ''anti-hero''. but yeah i guess that point is kind of arguable...

I guess I got "Anti-hero" mixed up with something else. Apparently it's just a protagonist that's a villain.

I thought it was a 'good guy' that's a dickhead.

 

[Spark Ignition]

Well, as said, there isn't much of an option. The cowardly kind of anti-heroes wouldn't work in a game, because the character might be cowardly, but the player is still gonna run straight at the bad guys.

I would have to disagree. Thief much???

Good point. But although it was a good character, and possibly one of the few games it did work, there were still potential problems. If the player felt like it (I did it for giggles sometimes) they could just rush at guards with swords, kill everyone they see, leave bodies in the middle of well lit rooms and wait for that guy that's patrolling to come along. None of those seem like cowardly acts, provoking a fight.
My point is, as well characterised as someone is, the player will almost always do something that doesn't ring true to the cowardly personality. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, it's always nice to see something new, but the character will fail slightly simply because they aren't in control. Problem with an interactive medium.

Oh undoubtedly. I will confess that I have never played thief, only heard of it (I know, I know, it's on my to-do list all right?) but similarly with Hitman, you're playing 47, supposedly the best, most skilful assassin (though that's kinda dubious since a lot of people seem to know of him!) yet it's possible to just rush in and clumsily gun everyone down. Where the genius of design comes in in both these games is in making a) the gameplay much more challenging and exciting (and therefore rewarding)if you're stealthy (and in more recent games offering incentives like achievements for doing it by the book) and b) creating an immersive fiction which you are reluctant to break character in.

 

[Dastardly]

Is it just me or are most anti-heros dicks?

The majority of them I come across (not just in video games but other mediums too) seem like conceited wankers, ie alex mercer from prototype and alex delarge from clockwork orange. I know those aren't the best examples but they were the first ones that came to mind lol. Are there any anti-heros out there that are likable or that one can still relate with? What's your opinion?

Discuss away...

Only because of a flawed definition of "anti-hero."

For a story standpoint, an Anti-Hero is simply a character who is/becomes heroic, but differs from your typical Hero archetypes, usually because of his/her morality, values, or behavior. You could think of it as a variation of the "unlikely hero."

Hyper-distilling this concept down leads us to the mistaken variation of the "unlikeable hero."

For the BEST examples of good anti-heroes, consult your Westerns--the wandering gunslinger. He has the following traits that are in opposition to the usual "heroic" persona:

1) He is a terse, somewhat rough loner, rather than "people-oriented."
2) He has a checkered past, usually involving crime and violence, and usually leaving him jaded.
3) He has bad habits and addictions, like gambling or drink.
4) He is reluctant to do the heroic thing, and it is usually thrust upon him somehow.
5) He accomplishes the heroic thing by use of off-hand, even dirty tactics that the usual "hero" wouldn't consider.

But there is a 6th trait that truly MAKES the Anti-Hero:

6) He is REDEEMABLE, whether or not he is ever redeemed.

This could mean he has a soft spot for the local "hooker with a heart of gold," who changes his mind on whether this one-horse town is worth the saving. It could just mean he has a long-dormant faith that creeps up at just the right moment to reignite an old spark of heroism. But there is some quality in him that makes it clear he has potential for something else in the right circumstances.

Usually, it's this very quality in #6 that is used to force him into heroism in #5--the hooker runs into trouble, so he ends up taking on the evil gang to defend her (and thus the townsfolk).

Examples of Anti-Heroes in popular culture:

- Many of Clint Eastwood's characters (who also happen to BE complete dicks)
- Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly
- Sharon Stone AND Russel Crowe from The Quick and the Dead
- Yes, Jack Sparrow.
- Sawyer on Lost, occasionally

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH the "underdog hero," or the mousy, weak-willed guy that eventually BECOMES heroic--this is a separate variation of the "unlikely hero." Sometimes they are the same, but it isn't a given.

WHERE MANY ANTI-HEROES GO WRONG:

1) They are mislabeled by the audience. The author may not have intended the character to be ANY kind of hero. They may just be making the villain the main character (not the same).

2) The author(s) misunderstand the "core" of the Anti-Hero. Being a dick is not a necessary part of the anti-hero... yet somehow it becomes the MOST IMPORTANT aspect to many authors who aren't effective at good characterization. It's just a way of clubbing you over the head with the notion that this guy's not the usual goody-goody hero... and when overstated the way it is, you're often left WITHOUT quality #6--he is seen as being beyond redemption.

"Bad Guy Main Character" is not the same as "Anti-Hero." When the two seem to collide, it may be because of the author indicating just a little too hard, or it may be because we've mixed up our terminology.

**NOTE** There are characters who ride the line, or even switch back and forth. Perfectly acceptable. But, like that awful Star Wars chestnut of the "gray Jedi," when it's overused, it just creates a bland mish-mosh of otherwise effective archetypes.

 

[Dastardly]

Also, just as the definition of "anti-hero" gets confused because of people focusing on only ONE possible aspect of the anti-hero (ie, being a dick), it can also be because of a rebellion against a similarly narrow definition of "hero" (ie, he's always super nice).

It's just lazy writing, sometimes. "What's the easiest way to keep people from thinking this character is a shallow, two-dimensional goody goody? Make him a shallow, two-dimensional jackass! Now I have an Anti-Hero, so that's edgy!"

 

[_Cake_]

Sten - Dragon Age

He's never a dick, sometimes even sorta funny.

 

[Madara XIII]

Your two examples are villains.

Not necessarily, he IS an anti-hero seeing as how he works for those with good intentions and on top of that eliminates zombie nazi's and goes against the catholics as well.

Basically he is an Anti-Hero, he still manages to stop other malicious forces but lacks alot of heroic traits (Almost none if any)

 

[bojac6]

Han Solo is an Anti-hero. Therefore they aren't.

That is all

Dammit, Ninja'd.

To expand, in New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, Han Solo's prime motivation is survival. He's not idealistic like Luke or Leia, he's in it for the money so he can pay off Jabba. But he's still a hero because he has a sense of right and wrong and he's conflicted about it.

You see it best in Empire when he makes the decision to take Leia with him on the Falcon because they're cut off from the rest of the ships. He's set, he has the money and he's ready to leave, but now he has to save the Princess again. You can tell he just wants to scream "FUUUUCCCKKKK" down the hallway. Quite frankly, the fact that he doesn't is why he isn't a dick. It would be so easy for him to be a dick at that point. He could remind Leia that she's making life tough for him. He could berate her or just curse fate or whatever. Which is what happens in many other works. The need to remind the audience that the character is not a hero takes over and they make him a dick. But in this case, you've got a decent guy in over his head, so he's not going to just be a punk about it. He'll acknowledge and make the best of it.

That's an anti-hero and that's not being a dick. I think the difference comes from what the writer is trying to prove. Most things with anti-heroes start out with a hero, and spend the work trying to prove that he's flawed (Prototype is a great example, the writers sort of assumes that you will relate to Mercer because you're playing as him. Therefore, they need to prove he's not a good guy). In these cases, the anti-hero is always a dick. But the few rare gems, like Han Solo, Deadpool, Captain Jack, a few others, start from the other assumption. The writers here start with a flawed character, one that you are suppose to immediately see as not a hero (Han Solo is in it for himself, Deadpool is psychotic, etc) and spends the rest of the work trying to prove to you that they are a hero. In this case you end up with the non-dickish anti-heroes.


Edit: Someone mentioned Captain Reynolds from Firefly. Another great example. Starts out as a loner, smuggler, mercenary, who was on the losing side of a war but spends the entire series trying to do the right thing.