The Fettered vs The Unfettered: Which do you prefer?

Trying to get a greater feel for both character tropes.

I wanted to know more about which one of the two you guys like: The Fettered or The Unfettered? I also wanted to know the flaws of both.

I actually think I might lean more towards The Fettered, when it's done right:

There are some who think having no boundaries and being willing to do anything to accomplish a goal makes you more dangerous, and that's true. If people know there's no line you won't cross, then when you say I will stick your head up your ass if you continue to fuck with me, they'll know you are serious.

However, this can mean you can sometimes be willing to Shoot the Dog a bit too quickly I think. Having nothing to hold you back makes it much easier to go right over the edge.

In contrast, I think having some rules you follow can be useful; the phrase I've been using to describe it lately is chains that hold you down can pick you up as well.

To put it bluntly, sometimes we need to set boundaries and have lines we won't cross unless things get so awful that it's the only possible option, because otherwise, you might become too quick to use the stick when the carrot might work just as well.

Being too ruthless can be just as much a weakness as being too soft.

Now.....

DISCUSS.

edited 23rd Jun '14 3:45:41 PM by HandsomeRob

In my own work, it's a well-accepted fact that one must either become one of the two in able to wield certain Enlightenment Superpowers to their full potential. That said, I'm generally more sympathetic towards The Fettered half of the equation. But then, that's my highly Lawful alignment kicking in — I instinctively regard a lack of moral code as a sign of weakness, even though I consciously know this would be a dreadful mistake to make with a true Unfettered. You don't live to become that iron-willed by being Chaotic Stupid, after all. Still, I can appreciate a time where an Unfettered is a true Necessary Evil to oppose something that absolutely, positively, must be unmade.

A personal reflection you can freely ignore: I was also surprised to realize that my story's resident Heroic Comedic Sociopath better fits as Fettered than Unfettered. Oh, sure, she's basically The Joker if he sold out, but it's her (warped) code of honor that keeps her acting as a Serial-Killer Killer and payer of evil unto evil rather than a true villain. It ensures her friends can feel safe relying on her, and her employers can expect the jobs they send her on to be executed without unnecessary mess.

edited 23rd Jun '14 4:19:21 PM by KillerClowns

I don't think that the two are so much opposites as points on a continuum or different perspectives on the same issue—specifically, deontological (rules/duty-based) versus consequentialist (results/ends-based) ethics as embodied in character archetypes. To put it another way: Do the ends justify the means, or the other way around?

Of course, this dialogue, always seems to avoid the matter of virtue ethics (striving to be a good person versus following good rules or working to good ends), which is unfortunate because three-way contrasts between such polarised and, if taken far enough, alienating modes of thought can be quite interesting.

For the record, I really love single-minded madmen, but moral sociopathy and weird virtues are just as interesting to dwell on.

Both have their place, but the Unfettered has a fundamental problem: by existing outside the rule of law and the bounds of most people's morals, they usually deny themselves a far greater source of strength than their own willingness to transgress them. The group will be stronger than the loner, and the system will be stronger than the anarchist. (Or to quote Batman "You're alone!") The more control is subordinated to one man, the more he can fatally weaken things by his misjudgement. In the end, the Fettered win, because there are more of them.

That said, most of my characters tend to mix the types. You can cause them to assume a no-rules stance, but within limited contexts or timeframes.

edited 23rd Jun '14 9:27:17 PM by Night

Good Is Not Soft. I love these characters and I think a lot of others do as well. Mari and Rei of Neon Genesis Evangelion, Superman, Spiderman, what Faith grew to be in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Commander Shepard in Mass Effect, Jun in Tekken'' and Kim Possible of...well...they tend to have that right mix of hard and soft. They really are nice, caring, friendly characters, and will beat down or kill, or Shoot the Dog, when it's needed.

A flaw in The Fettered and The Unfettered? Let's look at a classic example in Buffy. Warren was allowed to slide a whole lot in regards to his actions, being a He-Man Woman Hater, killer, rapist, ect. Then he tries to kill Buffy and kills Tara. Willow goes into a rage, hunts him down and kills him in a most brutal, and to some awesome way. Had she stopped there I don't think there would be anyone who wouldn't be cheering. But she didn't stop there. In this case I would argue it was about being unfettered. She wanted power, she was hopped up on dark magic and only through magical intervention she she take being unfettered in a different direction: try to end the world's suffering.

Now let's look at Buffy. She was the main voice against killing, even Warren. Well her job is to kill bad things. Warren was certainly a bad thing, if not a Complete Monster then certainly a candidate that may or may not have been discussed, might be worth looking up. Had she done her job this would not have happened. Same with Jun in Tekken The Motion Picture. She whined about not killing, and I get the If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him! idea exacerbated by things like, Devil I think. Had Heihachi been killed there would not be Ogre, or World War III, ect. We might have had something as bad or worse, but let's have a look at Shepard for that argument. There are a few people s/he can kill, in cold blood, where there may be no need. Rhana in the first game, but then she turns out to kill a lot of people. Elnora in the second, but it's quickly established she is a Thrill Killer. Morinth, this was essentially a assassination, had she not been stopped how many more would she murder before being turned into a banshee?

For a TLDR version take Ben and Glory. Glory was going to destroy the entire universe. Buffy was The Fettered and spared him despite even this. Giles killed him in cold blood so it wouldn't happen. To save the universe don't forget.

I find both fascinating, really. Something that I find interesting is that both approaches somehow doom the person using it. The Fettered sets up his downfall by refusing to adhere to the easier path, the cruel ways of the world. The standards he refuses to break give his enemies room to exploit him, but they also make him a sort of paragon of virtue to his allies. So he falls because his enemies strike lower than him, but his allies (usually) stay with him because of his nature. He gains fierce allies at the cost of giving his enemies an advantage. He falls because of his enemies.

The Unfettered follows the opposite path. By his pragmatism he (usually, again) achieves the upper hand against his foes but by being a ruthless bastards he ends up paving the way for his own downfall because he doesn't really get allies. As time passes, The Unfettered drowns in the own blood he sheds.

This may not be what you intended—and indeed is a bit outside the conversation in some respects—I wouldn't call the archetypal unfettered character an "anarchist" for two reasons.

Firstly, typical anarchist philosophy does not believe in hierarchy but does believe in moral law and fighting together, and are by definition "fettered" by their ideologies. The exceptions would be Stirnerites or egoists, who believe that the individual is the sole arbiter of morality and that all action comes from rational self-interest, which may or may not be altruistic; and the Russian Negilisti, or Nihilists, who believed that morality has no objective root as it currently exists and thus no violation of law is unjustified if furthering the goal of the annihilation of authority, although personal discretion is, as ever, imperative.

Secondly, the logical extreme of consequentialist philosophy acts outside the frame of law and order entirely, and may indeed further very un-anarchistic goals despite using inherently subversive methods. For example, if a character's sole goal is to instate a given monarch at all costs, then even the most lawless of antics are ultimately in service to an authoritarian end. Which is the only point, because to such a character, that end always justifies the means.

It is a fascinating paradox, but not entirely unpredictable given some of the arguments against thinkers like Stirner even in his own time—and not surprising given his friendships with Marx and Engels, but I digress.

I use a sliding scale of fetteredness to describe my characters, with 0 means unfettered, 10 means fettered, and it may change by character development.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

Well ok, that's not really so much of an interesting way to see it as it's the only way to see either trope.

Though I'd like to think that a smart fettered character is fully aware of how the enemy will use such a weakness against them, and would try and prepare for it.

That doesn't happen anywhere near enough though.

This is an interesting topic that deserves more in-depth discussion, but for now I'll simply talk about which I find more interesting.

For me, at least, the fettered is generally going to be more interesting than his counterpart. Why? Because putting limits on your characters helps to make them more interesting. If Johnny can't take the easy way out because it goes against his code (moral or otherwise), then that adds tension and hence conflict. It brings up certain questions, as well: will they ever compromise on their ideals? How much would it take for them to do so? And, of course, you could always invoke the tragedy of them being forced to break their code (and examine the consequences thereof). Having constraints put upon you forces you to be creative (both in terms of a character and as a writer).

The unfettered might be more stylish or seen as less old fashioned, but I find they don't really hold my attention for long.

There's also something satisfying about seeing the fettered character triumphing over the unfettered either despite his limitations or because of them.

Since the standing question is whether one prefers a fettered or unfettered character, I'll have to go with the latter. I like unfettered characters for what they are: ruthless individuals capable of anything within their power, with no moral limitation. That's how I like them, anyway. I think it's a problem when this character archetype is taken too far and the individual character in question becomes nothing close to being human, though. Case in point would be the numerous cold, heartless villains you'd see in many animes these days.

The fettered have their appeals, though, and I think the line between the two can be very blurry sometimes. What if the unfettered play by the rule, or pretend to, because it serves them well, or because they have to in order to protect themselves? I think the two of them have enough in common that even one character may be, well, both.

I like The Fettered, but I prefer The Unfettered, if that makes sense.

If you can get the job done by knocking a few heads then you should. Cant make an omelet and such-like going out of your way to avoid hurting or killing your enemy is just dumb, especially when they're the sort that won't take their loss in stride and will just become all the more dangerous.

But I like the idea to model yourself after an ideal and stick to it come hell or high water. Doesntkillman doesn't kill. That's his thing. If he's gonna fold like a cheap suit and go for the throat the first time the going gets rough what's the point of calling himself Doesntkillman in the first place?

People who truly believe that the ends always justify the means are fascinating at a distance because of how astoundingly dissonant their thought processes must be from normal human beings. It is not that they do not care, but they care a very great deal about one thing and in comparison nothing can be really relevant to them. We tend to have more complex hard-wired motivations than that: Survival, secondary physical needs, the safety of our loved ones, the acquisition of things that make us happy, charity, empathy, anger—the list goes on. This person has one thing, or else a very small number of related things. All else is only a step towards or away from that goal.

To my mind, the best is something in between. Both tropes have their strengths and weaknesses. While I admire such possible trait of The Fettered as Thou Shalt Not Kill, there's problem of Joker Immunity. We know where it can lead. The game Injustice:Gods Among Us showed it brilliantly. The problem of The Unfettered (I talk about heroes now) is He Who Fights Monsters. The Best choice of hero, to my mind, is a comnination of Knight in Sour Armor and Pragmatic Hero. P.S. I admire Giles for his Shoot the Dog. P.P.S Sliding Scale of Fetteredness and Unfetteredness is also interesting, Thaks!

edited 15th Nov '14 1:19:55 AM by GoodLuc

I'm glad I found this thread 'cause I have a related question. So, in my series my demons can't break an oath sworn on their magics, but they're otherwise free to do whatever they want. Are they The Fettered (because of the unbreakable law they ALL obey) or The Unfettered (because they can do whatever they want as long as the unbreakable law isn't transgressed)? And I don't want any of this noncommittal “Oh, it's a little of both” crap lol; I need to knooow!!!

BTW, this series I'm working on is all about what the cosmos would be like if all the forces of nature were personified as demons who are so totally selfish and violently passionate that the closest they could come to loving something is to own it. Overall, I like the drama that arises from imbalance; whether a character is too obsessed with rules to do what's most expedient or too obsessed with expediency to do what's “right”, I like showing how extremes are bad and moderation is good.

My understanding is that a Fettered character restricts him- or her- self by choice; to my reading your characters seem like the Unfettered bound by Magically Binding Contracts or Geasa rather than Fetters.

edited 15th Nov '14 8:51:07 AM by ArsThaumaturgis

Ditto, and for that reason the "fettered"-type character is infinitely more interesting. In both cases, the tropes refer to a character who has a lot of power: potentially, power to do good or evil. As I understand it, a fettered-type character, by choice, does not indulge in that power except under narrowly defined circumstances; an unfettered character will exercise that power to the limit.

Given that, the fettered character type is a lot more interesting. The temptation of power and its circumstances is an old, old theme, running right to the root of human nature, and a fettered character is one who has to reconcile that temptation with the need to use power despite its potentially corrupting nature.

(I hardly need add that I am being very specific in the use of the term "power": it could be magic, it could technological, it could be financial or political; in fact, I had that last context in mind when I wrote the post. Power in political science is defined as the ability to get someone else to do something that they would otherwise not do, whether through persuasion, coercion, or any other way.)

Really, Terry Pratchett put it best on the nature of the fettered-type character, as he has one of his characters—Lady Margolotta—muse: any thug in the street had power. The true prize was control...and all control began with the self.

Or, for another example of a really, really terrifying character who voluntarily restricts himself, there's Director Angleton. The moment when we learn something about the enigmatic old man's true nature is one of the defining exchanges of the series.

edited 15th Nov '14 9:47:43 AM by SabresEdge

I prefer both coexisting within the same story, and exploring not only their differences in approaching a situation but how they regard one another. In one of my stories, the protagonist eventually became The Unfettered through character development and through a series of events was paired with a character who was very much The Fettered, to the point where she wouldn't do anything that went against her code of morals and beliefs even when threatened with death or torture. It was interesting to portray their value systems and how they regarded each other as an idiot and a monster respectively and how they overcame—and in some cases didn't overcome—their differences in order to survive.

Thanks for clearing that up. In this case, swearing an oath is very specifically saying “if I fail, let my magic kill me”. I'm not sure if that's more like a geas or more like a contract.

A geas in the form of a contract?

edited 15th Nov '14 4:14:18 PM by ArsThaumaturgis

There was something that I wanted to know: Can a character that is The Fettered beat a character that is The Unfettered?

Insufficient data. Even if both characters are identical in terms of powers, abilities, and resources the nature of those will alter the balance of the two ideologies.

edited 15th Nov '14 5:02:04 PM by KillerClowns

Can he? Yes. Will he? That's an entirely different matter.

But yes, it's entirely within the realm of possibility for a The Fettered type to beat The Unfettered. One of the more common paths is pointing out how The Unfettered ruthless behavior causes the man to alienate his allies and lead to Divided We Fall as they all break apart due the perception that he is a psychopath, while The Fettered is much more likely to end up with True Companions.

Of course, The Fettered can also get his/her allies killed because he holds too strongly to his ideas, and they view him/her as a psychopath who cares more about keeping vague oaths and childish morals than his or her friends.

It does swing both ways.

Yes, but the question is how The Fettered could beat The Unfettered. I gave a possible answer.