Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

For what it's worth, I'd argue the problem is actually in declaring someone a good guy. For example, in politics, calling a specific politician a good guy is likely not going to go over as well as calling someone a bad guy.

This is for a few reasons, but basically it's because everyone screws up at least once and if you cherry pick it. This goes double for people in power. Actually, I think a good way of putting it is that, while you can't please everyone, upsetting everyone is easy. Indeed, everyone upsets someone.

Now, as for my tips on the topic:

• If a plot revolves around stopping a conflict or has a message of nonviolence, you should probably make both sides sympathetic. The presence of true evil justifies violence.

• If you want a morally ambiguous conflict, have both sides Pet the Dog, don't have both of them kick it necessarily.

• We as a society need to understand that true evil exists and that we must fight against it, we do ourselves a disservice by pretending anything else is true.

• Fascism is evil. In fact, I would argue that if you have fascist-like villains and other villains present, the fascists should be the ones playing Eviler than Thou if it comes up. If your heroes are fighting Nazis and then Alien Space Bugs show up, you should be having your heroes teaming up with the space bugs, not the Nazis.

• Everyone has a mixture of good and evil within them. Good people sometimes do bad things, bad people sometimes do good things.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Some shows that do have grey and grey morality also tend to have black and grey morality moments as well. Ex. Warhammer, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, South Park, etc.

Mostly because that mean a statement of who they are, anyone can be a good guy for a day or two, but being know as GOOD GUY? yeah that is hard.

"If a plot revolves around stopping a conflict or has a message of nonviolence, you should probably make both sides sympathetic. The presence of true evil justifies violence."

Just other tips here: -Yous hould at least aknowlage that peace is a proyect, meaning that sometimes is not going to work or is not a option, rather than using peace as some sort of purity test.

-I will said the reverse of what you said is also true: just because there is true evil dosent justify brutal violence, I have seen a sort of "this a really super evil so we can enact brutal and cathartic violence on them", I mean hell we didnt do that with the damn nazis, goodnes come for what we do, not who we fight.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

I could see a reconstruction of Black and White morality saying that people can have personal flaws and screw-ups but still be morally good and that having a few redeeming qualities doesn't make you any less evil due to the actions you commit.

For what it's worth, I think Fallout New Vegas is a pretty good balance between black and white and grey morality.

The NCR is overall, a mostly good faction despite having some real flaws. Caesar's Legion is super evil but in a way that's rather plausible and nuanced. House is somewhere in the middle. Yes Man is whatever you want it to be.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

It depends, I see more as just a throwback to black and white since the "enemy" now is racism and facism, I kinda joke that today conflict is civil rights mix with WWII clash of freedom vs tyrany narrative, very easy to whie and black morality.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

One issue I see pop up in stories with Grey-and-Gray Morality is the story trying to say both sides are sympathetic and have good points but botches the execution, frequently by making one side commit so many heinous acts that it drowns out any attempts to make them look good and/or not having them actually do anything good.

One recent example I can think of is the original IDW transformers comics. It's backstory had Cybertron be ruled by an oppressive government with a brutally enforced caste system based on alternate mode and the decepticons started out as a rebellion of lower class transformers while the founders of the autobots were members of this government that turned against the leaders. The period between 2012 and it's end in 2018 kept trying to insist that both groups were Not So Different now that the war was over but any attempts to make the decepticons sympathetic were often undermined by flashbacks during the war that showed them committing all kinds of atrocities against various alien species, autobot POWs and even other decepticons while the autobot's shadier actions paled in comparison and they even went out of their way to save and protect the people that the decepticons were trying to commit genocide against.

This may be why the 2019 reboot changed things a bit by making the decepticons have some good points but also making it clear that they are a villainous organization (though ironically most of their actions still come of as less evil than the previous series) while the autobots have some issues but are still largely heroic despite that.

I didn't know those had been rebooted at some point.

Isn't this take on the Autobot-Decepticon conflict a fairly new one? I recall the G1 cartoon and other related continuities had it the other way around, with the Decepticons being the original oppressors while the Autobots where the rebels.

Yea i think the most important aspect of morality color is what your message is supposed to be. If your message is that both sides have a point, then both sides need to actually have a point. Don't make one side far more reprehensible.

I think that overall, Game of Thrones does this fairly well. Many fall into grey morality, but even then some people are just absolute monsters and some people have ideals to make a better world.

At the risk of provoking another round of this, a major reason AOT doesn't work that well for me is that it basically goes from black and white morality (Titans are animals that murder humans indiscriminately, and humans do what they can to survive) to black and grey (humans aren't all that great) to black and black (genocide them or they genocide us).

I think the Civil War in Skyrim is another good example. As dull, repetitive and content-lacking as the questline itself is from a gameplay perspective, the Civil War as a worldbuilding element is, imo, very well handled. Both sides are clearly presented as having arguably valid grievances with the other side, as well as both good and bad (and neutral) people within their ranks. The people of Skyrim are also shown to have room for citing personal, moral, traditional or practical reasons to side with either faction.

For example, it's not so simple as to say "The Stormcloaks represent Nord tradition" and "The Empire represents progress", since people on both sides argue that they represent traditional Nord culture (the former citing Talos worship especially, the latter noting Skyrim's support of Tiber Septim - notably, both of these aspects of Nord culture have been around a similar amount of time). Similarly, Ulfric has done things where it's easy to see why it would inspire admiration from some, but intense personal disgust from others (killing the High King in a traditional and technically legal, but generally considered outdated, way, as one example). Or in terms of practical reasons, it can either be argued that the Empire is too weak and unwilling to stand up to the Thalmor (supported by the uneven peace treaty the emperor signed with them), or that the Stormcloaks are foolishly weakening both Skyrim itself and the Empire as a whole (and thereby making any future war with the Thalmor needlessly difficult).

Heck, it's even highlighted with the tutorial characters representing each side, Ralof and Hadvar. They both come from the same village, from families who routinely do business with each other. They are both affable nice guys with a martial inclination, fighting for what they believe is right. Neither likes the Thalmor, and both worship Talos (even if Hadvar has to do it more secretively). In other words, it's incredibly likely that they would have been good friends if not for the civil war. But instead, they find themselves bitter enemies because of their differing views on a complicated political, religious and cultural issue without a clear, right answer (other than in the very general sense of "Screw the Thalmor!" - which notably both sides agree on, but they are too split on how to accomplish that).

Roll a Constitution saving throw to make it through the year.

Heck it is possible that they were good friends prior to the civil war.

Disgusted, but not surprised

I liked the hypocrisy and cherry picking on both sides too. The Stormcloaks claim Nords are for Nords and that the Empire is a foreign invader. Except anyone who knows anything about history in Tamriel knows that is complete nonsense: Skyrim is the one that conquered Cyrodiil and established the Empire, not the reverse.

(Which is a good Viking parallel since the Anglo-Saxons are Christianized descendants of Odin worshiping people themselves)

Talos is the founder of the Empire as well, albeit his descendants no longer rule it and are apparently extinct.

The Empire is not covering itself in glory either as its attempts to appease the Thalmor is alienating its allies left and right. The casualties it suffered and losses were catastrophic but Hammerfell shows the Thalmor are not as strong as they appear.

Ulfric is also a man who suffers great Moral Myopia as his handling of the Forsaken in the Westlands was brutal and oppressive. It also resulted in them being radicalized (albeit Daedra worshipers may actually be a Religion of Evil so it could be The Extremist Was Right).

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 17th 2021 at 2:48:13 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

" Many fall into grey morality, but even then some people are just absolute monsters and some people have ideals to make a better world."

And most of the monster exist in the periphery rather than leader who cast their evilness in mold to him, martin dosent mind having absolute monsters, but is clear he dosent like the dark lord architype were evil spring like a well from him.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

In a recent interview, I pointed out George actually is annoyed with some fans who want things to be grayer than they are. George wants Cersei Lannister to have been a bad seed who was a murderous psychopath since birth.

However, huge chunks of the fandom, women especially, think her life and frustrated ambitions are so horrifying that she's justified in a huge chunk of her actions.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

That too

Yeah, I don't like the leather pantsing some people do with Cersei. I was fine with the initially minor changes in the early seasons of the show, because Lena Headey really killed it with her performance, and said portrayal still preserved the essential pettiness towards non-family members. But D&D painting her as the more popular alternative to Dany? After she blew up the Sept!? No effing way. And people who try to make Book!Cersei out to be admirable are imo in denial. And I don't even really get it, there are other female characters with far more admirable qualities both in the main book series and in spinoffs (Lady Rohanne Webber stands out as another tough woman in a position of power, but isn't a Complete Monster). I have a bit more sympathy for show watchers (because of the aforementioned subtle softening combined with the show adapting out or changing many of the other female characters to be less important, interesting or admirable, what with the showrunners apparently thinking "women can only be strong if they are ice-cold ruthless bitches who don't care about anything or anyone".

Indeed, she's implied to have shoved her friend into a well, because the girl had the gall of being interested in Jaime.

Edited by Kardavnil on Jul 17th 2021 at 3:17:31 AM

Roll a Constitution saving throw to make it through the year.

Ulfric seemed like a terrible hypocrite to me because of the way he killed the High King. He claims that the latter was a weakling, yet he did not fight him honourably, but used a technique he knew his opponent could not defend against.

The game does make it difficult to decide though what would be the better outcome with respect to the Thalmor. One would think that without the Empires' support, Skyrim would become vulnerable, yet the Empire did abandon one of its' provinces to the Thalmor, which subsequently managed to defend itself against the Nazi Elves.

Isn't Book Cersei heavily implied to have murdered her friend when she was still a child and when she was still well-treated by her father?

Edited by Zarastro on Jul 17th 2021 at 12:09:51 PM

Maybe it's not the most fitting thread to ask, but it is kinda, sorta related to Politics in Media. Been rewatching Goodfellas, the scene where Tommy was being made (or rather, he thought he was being made), Henry mentioned that he himself and Jimmy could never become full-fledged members of the Mafia because they had irish blood.

Why was the Mafia racist in that way?

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

The answer is kind of the mundane:

1. Criminals are generally racist

2. People of the time are racist.

The less mundane:

3. It's a secret society that depends on a number of rules to guarantee loyalty. The mob maintains itself by an air of mysticism, tradition, and ritual that has very few rules but ones that are supposeldy iron clad. They may not be many rituals but the few they do have are taken very seriously.

4. The rules on this date back a few centuries and influenced by early American immigration culture. Its important to note the mob is a heavily regional thing and gained power among immigrant communities by claiming to be a part of the culture.

5. The mafia in RL tends to actually be flexible about these things but in terms of Loophole Abuse versus actual violation. Being a Made Man is a very important and prestigious position that theoretically protects you from being killed unless you get permission for it from the heads. Plenty of non-Italian "purebloods" get very important positions in the mob but being Made is a decades-long process that even most Italians don't get.

Take note that Robert Deniro's character can never be made but he's still a medium to high ranking associate of the mob and higher ranked than pureblood Tommy (who would never have been made and was executed for his crimes—and got away with a ridiculous amount of shit until he did kill a made man).

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 17th 2021 at 3:43:13 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

The same can be seen in godfather were the mafie discuss the issue of drug and one said they will keep drug out of children...except blacks of course "those animal dosrnt have soul anyway" were their worst and of course the racist against corleone cognsilieri.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

The mafia also has a bunch of history with hypocrisy where they made a deal to never deal in narcotics to be Villain with Good Publicity people, so they immediately hired gangs outside of the mafia to deal drugs and tithe up to themselves.

(The IRA did the same but eventually just gave up the pretense)

Notably, in RL the Jewish mob was effectively absorbed into the Italian mob to the point they had their own heirarchy but relied on them for muscle. The Black Mobs tried to do the same but ended up having their territory absorbed and shaken down with all promises broken (and this resulted in several black gangs rising up to overthrow them).

Random Aside:

One of the criticisms of the Godfather by RL mafia noted that the ending where Michael assassinates all the bosses was beautifully done but would never happen in actual mafia culture because the system is designed to prevent the bosses from being killed. It certainly happens but the system is rigged so that the people who die in conflicts are almost always the lower ranked goons. Michael doing so would have effectively ended the Mob (or made him head of all of it) if it had happened in RL.

A more "realistic" outcome would have been the fight ending with Virgil Sollozzo's death because of killing Sonny.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 17th 2021 at 3:42:14 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Well I mean, that one is obvious. While I personally prefer the Godfather movies, they clearly lean more on the fictitious side than Goodfellas (or Casino, for that matter).

In Godfather, mobsters are often glorified, while Goodfellas portrays them just the way they were: Murderous scum who don't even bother to put on a pretense most of the time.

Edited by Forenperser on Jul 17th 2021 at 12:57:17 PM

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

And even The Godfather movies had scenes that reminded you that these people are murderous criminals. The first movie did it brilliantly by juxtaposing a baptism with a brutal series of murders.

Edited by M84 on Jul 17th 2021 at 7:51:36 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Yes actually, the original series had the decepticons being military hardware while the autobots started out as civilian goods and the decepticons managed to take over Cybertron by the first episode of the cartoon. Optimus Prime was even originally conceived as an Abraham Lincoln type figure.

The Decepticons being military hardware is also why they had the advantage for most of the Great War until humans got involved. The movie took it up to eleven of course with the Decepticons killing off a bunch of Autobots in minutes.

Transformers Animated also rolled with that, with every fight between Autobots and Decepticons making it very clear that the Decepticons are much more powerful warriors. Even Starscream can kick the asses of the entire Autobot team. And Megatron is the second strongest Cybertronian we see in that series, with the strongest one being a bonafide superweapon.

Edited by M84 on Jul 17th 2021 at 8:21:37 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised