Thread:BeholderofStuff/@comment-2059440-20181104050249/@comment-2059440-20181105203419

Mesektet wrote: To hell with morality. Morality is subjective and we are extensions of an encyclopedic website (however very flawed we may be by comparison to an Encyclopedia) I say stick to the original litmus test for antagonists. Antagonist = creates conflict, Protagonist = resolves plot. Let us all pull our heads out of our butts about if a character is good, an extremist, bad, tragic, an-anti-hero, anti-villain et cetra, et cetra. Does he/she/it create conflict in the flow of the narrative presented to us the audience? Now we can say, well they used to but they turned out to be the decoy villain, or it was a misunderstanding, but a story stilled used them as the agent of conflict in order to unfold so that would still be an antagonist. A simple "yes" or "no" If it is both then fine, make one on each wiki but let's not go swallowing the hype about how "Edgy" someone is or getting drunk off our own limited perspective of what is moral, because history has had far too many Crusades already. Set the edge-lord nonsense and moral finger wagging aside and just look mechnically at the role a character plays. nice try and all but villains are a morality thing, without morals they are NO villains whatsoever so don't insult this entire site - morality may not exist in real world but is sure does in fictional worlds, that's what villains are : "characters that commit evil acts".. we can't name ourselves *VILLAINS* Wiki and then suddenly say "hey, morality doesn't exist" because the very concept of villains and heroes are morality-based.. hence why we don't call people heroes or villain in the real-world, or we shouldn't.. in fiction, however, there's always been a clear morality system and there still is in many works.