Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

(I put this topic in Serious Debate since it covers some taboo concepts)
So I looking around some writing advice on Youtube and I came across a rather interesting video from a Youtuber named Literature Devil. This is his first video and talks about a rather interesting topic. (video below, 2018)

In case the video goes missing or the video doesn't work, I'll summarize. LD argues that one thing that seems to be sorely missed in most modern superhero films/comics and films in general is the internal conflict between a character and their inner struggle. Two points he talked about are Intentions vs Outcome and Thoughts vs Actions.

For the former, he talks about Intentions vs Outcome, if a person is good if their intentions is good despite the outcome being bad and vice versa. One example is that the video game Injustice has Superman kill the Joker as a rage-induced revenge because Joker killed Lois Lane. While Superman's intentions aren't pure good, the death of Joker potentially prevented deaths of other people. This lead to a morally gray dilemma.

The latter covers Thoughts vs Action where this defines the difference between a hero and a villain. Where a hero vs a villain is define by action. Villains succumb to their flaws while a hero resist or keeps their flaws under control. A character with an evil thought vs. evil character. Another Superman example: Superman saves someone from a burning building. Pretty heroic but eh, boring. But a character who has a hatred of a group of people either linking to a tragic past or an event and becomes a hero later down the line. Eventually, the hero saves someone fro a burning building. But this someone is a person that the hero hates due to him/her being linked to a group that caused the hero's hatred. This presents a dilemma and what defines a hero and a villain. A villain will leave them to die but a hero can save them despite the hero's grudge based on their color or other affiliates. A racist character might be noble enough to save someone who he/she hates.

LD also states that most modern comic book/movies heroes and characters lack flaws that are ugly and destructive due to modern society reflecting a "correct" view onto them and the crackdown on topics to find definite right answers/solutions or that an irredeemable flaw could reflect badly to a group/demographic.

LD concludes that due to "political correctness" many characters have their flaws being forsaken, leading to clean, corporate, cliche, and safe characters that makes them hard to relate and sympathize. He also states that a writer's job is to break away from the mainstream and find other venues. He says to not be afraid of making characters that are harsh, offensive, and unpleasant and wrong but most importantly make them human.

This lead to me thinking, can a character with a flaw so irredeemable and unsympathetic be good and heroic? Doesn't have to apply to racism. Can a character who is homophobic be heroic? What about Transphobic? Nazi? Pedo/Rapist? Someone with a depraved fetish? Greedy? Sexist? SJW/Straw Feminist? Abuser? Religious fundamentalist? A coward? An annoying rich girl from high school? Can a character with any of these traits be heroic?
Because while I'll agree with LD that characters with "bad" flaws can be heroic via actions, there are some traits/flaws that might tarnish them even if they did heroic things. That's my take on it.

Do you agree with Literature Devil's stance on the topic? Is it possible to make a character with a an ugly flaw a hero? Or are they're forever be deemed as bad even if they do heroic actions?

It's definitely possible.

Longer answer:
I've seen this discussion come up a lot in DnD with character alignments. Having evil-aligned party members often becomes a difficult struggle of "how do I have this character be evil while still fighting for the same cause as the rest?" Weirdly enough, a player that attempts to answer this can often make a more interesting character. Concentrating on a flaw, even one as simple as "they're evil", really flexes your noggin and makes you put more effort into making the character. It can really help make your character more than just an extension of your ideals/personality, and inject more individuality into them.

I'm pro-flawed heroes.

My English class just finished The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, so this is a pretty good topic. Huck, for starters, is not a "good kid"; he's your average, trouble-making fourteen year-old. But when people debate Huck's morality, they do not refer to his being part of gang but whether or not he is racist. Huck was clearly racist in the beginning of the novel, not seeing Jim as a person and casually using the n-word. Over time, he devolped a friendship with Jim, but this does not mean that Huck began to see him as a person; Jim was still just a plaything to adventure with in Huck's eyes.
Over time, however, Huck began to see Jim in a different like. Huck could never believe that a black man could love his family as much as Jim does or show bravery, kindness, intelligence, or any other positive trait that was reserved for whites at the time. To rationalize this, Huck decided that Jim must just be "white on the inside" or, at the very least, unique from other black people. An incredibly powerful moment that showed both Huck's care for Jim and why he still does not see the humanity in blacks is when he was debating writing a letter to Miss Watson, Jim's master, about his location. Huck felt good about himself when he wrote the letter and planned on mailing it to her, for he felt like it would make up for his helping a black man escape slavery. However, Huck then began to think about all the memories he shared with Jim, and, truly believing that he will go to Hell for helping a black man, tore up the letter.
The racism of the South was too deeply ingrained in Huck for even an adventure with a escaped slave to change his mind; he met few other black people on his adventure, and, when he did, they were mentioned in passing or the victim of one of his schemes. However, Huck seeing the humanity in Jim and protecting him from recapture that wasn't a problem since Miss Watson died and freed Jim when they were gone shows that Huck can be a truly good, moral person.

There's Wakka from Final Fantasy 10 and his distrust of the Al Bhed. This gets meme fairly often but he is disputably on the good guy's team.

I like flawed heroes, they're generally more interesting than boring, milquetoast flawless paragons of humanity that other characters fall in love with at first sight.

One caveat I would like to add is that I usually enjoy seeing a flawed heroic character overcoming their flaws eventually and become a good person. I am an idealist at heart so I enjoy stories more when there is some instance of betterment or character growth. Characters that are just consistently assholes become myopic after awhile and I stop enjoying them.

I believe so, Tony Soprano from the TV show bearing his namesake rings to mind, at least initially. He's openly prejudice towards blacks and other minorities/groups and borders on being sociopath. Despite that, he's oddly one of the more altruistic/compassionate mobsters in the entire series (save maybe Bobby and Little Carmine who are relatively squeaky clean for being criminals).

Although this argument for Tony lessens near the end of the show when it becomes evident he wont overcome his flaws. Still, Tony is a step above almost everyone in the crime syndicate if only for a sincere love of his family.

I absolutely think they can be heroes, even if they have some serious flaws.
That said, you were sort of throwing out a bunch of different stuff near the end of your post. Being a pedo is not nearly the same as being greedy obviously.

Ultimately, I think it depends on various things like context and how exactly the term hero is used. For example, it's pretty difficult for me to call a rapist or pedo a hero, but if they did nothing wrong aside from that, I could see that person being called a hero by those they saved. Maybe even if they learn of their flaw, especially if the hero in question expresses remorse for their flaw/actions. In the more traditional(?) sense of the word(perhaps from a more role-model type perspective, like All-Might) however, I don't think they could.

The thing is that racism isn't even that irredeemable or unsympathetic if you really think about it.

Racism is literally just holding a prejudice against a specific race of humans (or in the context of fiction, race of sentient beings). Everyone in the world holds their own prejudices against a certain group or idea, whether or not they want to admit it. Sometimes it stems from constant negative experiences, or maybe from bad influences, or just plain ignorance.

People like Daryl Davis have shown that even KKK members aren't all inhuman monsters. He has managed to get around 100 people to quit the klan all by just talking to them as a regular human and treating them like anyone else. If real humans can be redeemed from being members of a horrible racist organization, why can't fictional characters do so?

Being racist is a negative character trait, but it doesn't make you less human.

PewDiePie is ( apparently ) a racist, and he's my hero

Its possible though I see it more often in fiction.
One I can think of is Val-Yor from Teen Titans whos super racist against Tamarianans like Starfire but does indeed seem to otherwise fight the forces of evil. Though hes still an asshole and racist by the end of the episode.
I really only know fictional examples of it personally.

In fiction, a hero, like LD indeed points out, is often determined by their actions (saving lives, the world, etc.), whereas something like a racist is determined by their thoughts. Since neither of the 2 are necessarily correlated, then yes, a hero, by definition, can have serious flaws like being a racist and still save lives and do other heroic things.

You could even argue this point with "lesser" flaws such as being a thief. Thievery is a written sin and deprives someone else of something they possess, so a character that is OK with being a thief is inherently flawed by our standards, but their actions could be that of a hero instead, so that is why we have characters like Zidane from FF IX and Joker from Persona 5, who are seen as good guys and are even the protagonists of their games despite being thieves.

Digital media, unfortunately, rarely ever touches this topic beyond safe borders, like the aforementioned thief example, since a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that touching these topics is somehow either endorsement of those things or enables them further, unless they are put on a villain character, and it is still a rare thing even for villains, which is odd, since we have almost full-scale genociders like Thanos or Asriel and people are fine with them, but if they were more specific and killed less people based on a trait they have, now it is immoral.

It truly does limit artistic choices, really. And it is a shame, since the few times I have seen it actually done, it is quite interesting. Take Valkyria Chronicles, for example. That game threads with the concept of racism against dark-skinned people, and it uses a lot of symbolism taken from real-life racism, and they most definitely do not limit it to just the villains. No, some actual playable units are racist themselves. It is even a negative combat trait for some lesser characters. One main character, however, goes on a "redemption" arc of sorts, and it is by far the best I have personally seen from any videogame touching the topic of racism. I will not go in detail in the off-chance it is a spoiler for anyone reading, but… yes, it was a strong moment in the game that truly stuck with me, and I am sad that we do not get to see more of it today due to the desire of staying brand-safe to a wider audience.

I say the best way to answer this and similar questions is to look for people in the real, present world and in history who have significant flaws in their moral character, but who you still find relatable/respectable as people and whose deeds you value despite the things that are clearly wrong with them.

We are all only mortals and sinners, after all. Any attempt to write a morally perfect character will result in said character inheriting the moral shortcomings of its author.

I mean it’s doable, for me at least most of my racists and sexist characters Normally go through arcs where being prejudice is bad and learn that others who are different from them are in fact, people. Those who remain bigots are well, villains in my stories or at least antagonist if I’m being lenient.

Just my opinion i guess

yes its called Politically Incorrect Hero

Well yes, as long as they acknowledge it as a flaw and not something to be proud of.

Case in point, Fisher Tiger from One Piece.

The guy is a freedom fighter who rebel against the Celestial Dragons for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves who suffer from their abuse no matter what race they are. The irony there is that he himself was a slave and have developed a deep rooted hatred towards humans because of the things he endured. Which really adds to the tradgedy of his character as he knows for a fact that not all humans are evil incarnate like the Dragons who enslaved him, and because of said hatred he attain he is unable to return the feelings of love towards humans who are nice to him which is a shame he doesn’t wish the other Sun Pirates to know.

Basically this is what we called the Noble Bigot . . . also Tragic Bigot. Which seems like the only two tropes that can make a racist character heroic