Antagonist in NoAntagonist

Spinning off from this discussion.

No Antagonist has a note:

Theharbo asks,

• A wild bear wouldn't count as The Antagonist in this context?
• A cave-in or other forces of nature wouldn't count as The Antagonist in this context?

Vilui also suggested that the note intended "sapient".

So who isn't an antagonist? Does No Antagonist specifically refers to lack of The Antagonist?

As far as I care, anything that can act on its own even if it's not intelligent is a character (animals, spirits, monsters, security bots, autonomous egyptian curses), and any character who creates a problem to The Protagonist is The Antagonist. But I sense it's very debatable.

I agree with you.

Taking two genre into consideration Kaiju and Zombie Apocalypse for examples; in their most classic forms, neither monsters nor zombies horde are sapient. They are just driven by very primitive instincts and won't get out of their way to get the protagonist, but nonetheless get in conflict with the protagonist because of how they act.

By your argument, this points it towards being not a matter of sentience/sapience, but of character.

If the thing in the way of the protagonists is a character, it is an antagonist. If it is not a character, it is not an antagonist.

• Some Kind of Force Field: not sentient, not a character, not an antagonist.
• Force of nature: not sentient, not a character, not an antagonist.
• Force of nature in the shape of Godzilla: sentient, character, and thus antagonist.
• Bear in a cave: sentient, character, and thus antagonist.
• Killer Robot at its most basic: not sentient, but a character, so antagonist
• Setting as a Character: not sentient, still a character, and thus potential antagonist.

Edited by Theharbo on Feb 17th 2024 at 11:32:59 AM

Pretty much

The trope description says "the forces at work are more intangible and not bound to a set of characters." While The Antagonist concerns characters / tangible creatures that oppose the protagonist, No Antagonist seems to be a catch-all for other forms of conflict, such as "self vs self" and "self vs nature." Its description says that "the central conflict of the work has no characters who are a defined source of friction." What I'm saying is that No Antagonist is not when there's a lack of an antagonist. And the lack of a character / tangible antagonistic force is not necessarily No Antagonist, as is the case when there really is no antagonistic force (which probably would be a very boring story since there'd be no conflict).

Honestly, the trope's name should probably be No Antagonistic Character. But idk if the trope is actually being misused so idk if such a change would do any good. (Besides the fact that a name change is beyond the scope of this thread.)

I agree with rephrasing the "sentient" comment, but I think it should just say "characters" or "characters or tangible creatures" or something that contrasts with the key sentences in its description. Additionally, I think we should remove the Exactly What It Says on the Tin wick, as this trope clearly needs a lot of explaining. Moreover, the trope title doesn't seem to fit the "everything meaningful has to be conveyed in the title" requirement, since there still is an antagonistic force.

The purpose behind the trope is that there isn't a central character at the heart of the drama. In a Big Disaster Plot there may be wildlife or even local looters who make the experience more miserable for the main characters, but they aren't a villain to overcome in order to resolve the story. Or with someone Desperately Looking for a Purpose in Life they may have non-supportive figures in their life such as family, boss or love interest but the core conflict is within.

This is a trope that requires some nuance and understanding of the individual work, as in a Big Disaster Plot one of the looters may have triggered the disaster to steal from a vault and serve as the third act fight that allows the heroes to finally reach safety.

Ok, so let me throw a curveball at you. The Star Wars Legends novel Death Star follows an Ensemble Cast of common workers and soldiers aboard the Death Star, who gradually go from "vague idea of 'Empire Bad' but it's paying the bills" to—especially after Alderaan—"holy mother of God, these people are total psychos" and eventually try to defect to the Rebellion during the Battle of Yavin. Vader, Tarkin, Motti, and Daala are all present but never really interact with the protagonists much.

It's not really true that the novel has no antagonist in the literal sense, but the antagonist is more the Empire as a system than any specific Imperial character or group, and the Empire's defeat by the Rebels at Yavin is basically Hero of Another Story.

Say, what about works where there's no antagonist, but only because it's an Ensemble Cast where everyone is a protagonist?

Like, in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, there's plenty of person vs. person conflict, as characters race to reach a hidden pile of money first, and get into multiple physical altercations with each other. But none of them fit the role of The Antagonist, as everyone who's racing for the money is one of the Main Characters, and all get more-or-less equal focus.

Edited by RavenWilder on Feb 17th 2024 at 4:04:35 AM

Protagonists can be antagonists, though. Not always at the exact same time, but sometimes.

Soap Operas are kind of like that-the cast's often greatest threats are each other. They're all main characters and we as the audience often root for one over the other, but it can change depending on the season or episode.

Lots of genre dramas are the same way. Characters often take turns antagonizing each other and being framed as the "Bad guy" for an arc or season or episode or whatever.

I suppose, if you really wanted to, you could make a trope documenting such examples. Call it "Antagonist Rotation" or "Musical Chairs Antagonist" or "Temporary Antagonist" or something.

Maybe we need a trope that specifically covers stories where the Main Characters are enemies to each other, without any character or faction being the main character. Something that is to Protagonist and Antagonist what Grey-and-Gray Morality is to Hero and Villain.

Unless we already have a trope that covers that, but a quick search of the likely places hasn't turned up one.

The Rival or Opposing Sports Team can still take on the role of an Antagonist, someone who is in opposition to the goals of the protagonist.

The point of No Antagonist is that the conflict is not motivated by a character and thus not resolved by overcoming another character. It's driven by an internal strife or another type of physical struggle (illness, disaster, nature). Any example that overcomplicates the definition of Antagonist or Protagonist within the work is thus likely not an example, but something else.

By that logic, a bear in a cave would not count as an antagonist, correct? Even if it is in the way of the protagonist.

It's just a part of the world that happens to be in the way, only momentarily providing an obstacle rather than being a source of conflict/tension in the plot.

That was my original interpretation as well and what led to my proposition that there'd been a mistake in the sentient/sapient part of the note at the bottom, because if you could replace the functionality of the bear with any sort of natural phenomenon covered by the trope description, then by rights the bear couldn't be called an antagonist any more than a cave-in could.

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.." etc.

But as pointed out, it's not about sentience/sapience. Godzilla is absolutely an antagonist in the film, despite being a thinly-veiled allegory for nuclear destruction. He is the source of conflict/tension, regardless of his lack of sapience.

So is the duck test above the best way to determine it then, akin to the MacGuffin? Something like:

• Can you replace the being in question with a natural or non-sentient obstacle without affecting the story? If yes, it's not an antagonist.

Of note, this would mean that settings with a Greater-Scope Villain absolutely could tell stories without antagonists: sure, they are there in the background, but if Orcus is sitting on his throne for the entire duration of the story, then he's not really doing anything antagonistic in the story itself. A villain who is entirely offscreen could just as well not be there at all.

Edited by Theharbo on Feb 18th 2024 at 12:24:17 PM

Original YKTTW for reference.

From that YKKTW:

"Rather than representing the conflict as the "good guys" against the "bad guys", the central conflict is caused by other forces and does not feature characters in direct opposition to the protagonists. There is no evil villain hiding in his lair with a plot to destroy the world, no tyrannical ruler bent on mayhem and destruction, and no rival waiting to foil our heroes at every turn. Instead, the forces at work are more intangible and not bound to a set of characters.

This obviously doesn't mean that there is no conflict or tension. It simply means that the central conflict of the work has no characters that are the source of friction. This could mean that the conflict comes from an internal struggle, such as with addiction, or it could mean that the conflict arises from sort of natural/scientific disaster. As long as there are no "bad guys" opposing the main characters, this trope applies."

At that point, it seems original intent was for the trope to be any story where source of the story's conflict is not a character.

Indeed. So to qualify for the No Antagonist, there must be no opposing character whatsoever.

At least no character who is the source of story-relevant conflict. As I read it, the random bear in a cave wouldn't be an antagonist here.

An Antagonist is more than a temporary conflict. A bear encounter in a greater Man Vs Nature story is not an antagonist. The hostess at a restaurant having a dispute with a couple in a Rom Com is not an antagonist.

I suggest the note be changed to reflect that then. As it currently reads, any sentient being in any kind of way of the protagonists is regarded as an antagonist - and as we have already discussed, sentience/sapience has nothing to do with whether something is an antagonist or not as far as the trope is concerned.

^^ I see your point, but would like to note that if the bear is a major obtacle between the protagonist and their goal, then it is, even if its motive is still the same.

Say, the protagonist is exploring a cave before the way he went in has a cave-in and the only exit he found must get pass a hibernate bear. I can see why the bear won't count as an antagonist if this occurred in a chapter of a novel/TV series with the character continue his adventure after getting out of the cave (not that I agree with, but I won't contest if it's on the wiki), but if it's a short story/movie and getting out of the cave is the point of the story, then the bear should count (the cave-in incident, however, won't count regardless of the work's length even if it drving the plot).

Edited by Kuruni on Feb 19th 2024 at 1:13:04 AM

Well yeah, look at Jaws for Pete's sake. There's whole genres where the antagonist isn't an intelligent creature.

I don't think this trope should attach qualifiers like sapience to it: I point again to Death Star, where the "antagonist" isn't Darth Vader, Grand Moff Tarkin or Emperor Palpatine, nor even the Rebellion viewed from the Sympathetic P.O.V. of a Villain Protagonist like Thrawn. The "antagonist" is the Empire itself as a system of government, grinding people down with its uncaring military bureaucracy and making them complicit in horrific crimes, and the resolution isn't taking part in its defeat, but just surviving and escaping it so the cast has an opportunity to figure out what to do with the rest of their lives.

Point being, the trope ought to be for works where the core conflict pits "Man" more against a concept than against a specific being or group.

Edited by StarSword on Feb 19th 2024 at 3:25:02 PM

So is everyone okay with a change of the qualifier at the bottom? As we've concluded here, antagonists do not even need to be sentient to count as antagonists - but just any sentient/sapient being getting in the way of the protagonist cannot be said to be an antagonist either: A shark can be an antagonist in one movie (Jaws), and a simple obstacle in another (see the Shark Pool trope), it depends on the context of the story being told whether or not the shark is one or the other.

In the same vein, The Empire can just be a part of the setting, or it can be a problem the protagonists are forced to deal with, regardless of whether or not they actually interact with any characters responsible for it.

I'm thinking something like:

Important: "No Antagonist" means Exactly What It Says on the Tin. If one or more antagonists directly oppose the efforts of the protagonists within the story, it is not an example. Regardless of how well-intentioned they are or however justified their actions might be.

Or:

Important: "No Antagonist" means Exactly What It Says on the Tin. If there are one or more antagonists of any kind in the story, it is not an example. Make sure to thoroughly consider whether the story considers anyone, or anything, an antagonist before adding it here.

Edited by Theharbo on Feb 22nd 2024 at 12:07:32 PM

A work can have multiple minor antagonists.

I don't think that was ever in question, but they must still be antagonists and not simply obstacles.

Bump. If no one has any objections to my post , I will go ahead and change it on the trope description

No objections. I prefer the second since I don't see justification or good intention as relevant to whether a shark or pursuing bear can be considered "not an antagonist".