Skip to content

Riot writers, what do you have against the "usual" good guys?

Stars Shaper··118 votes·33,847 views

I'm seriously asking why you are so keen in turning the tables with the stereotipes of the good and the bad guys and make any angelic figure as much as unhuman and distant from any kind of common moral while making darkness related characters not only more in tune with the human behaviors but also more likeable and closer to ethics and morals that make them the good guys.

This is no more about that damned "grey zone", you are actively making it so that even the Darkins are more likeable of Demacia as a whole and Kayle. Even in Kayle new lore, all you do is a praise to Morgana being the compassionate one and Kayle realizing she was wrong all along deciding then to take a pilgrimage in order to be even less human and more apathetic.

What the freak happened to you? Did an Angel hurt you irl or are you all still in "that phase" where everything dark is cool and everything holy is boring?

340 Comments

RiotRiot Scathlocke63 votes

As we've said many times - "good" and "evil" are relative, and we're not aiming for such 2-dimensional tropes anymore.

Stars Shaper53 votes

Ok, then why once again the angelic figure gets dehumanized and goes into a zealous rampage while the "dark character" gets to be the more human like again? You did good on 2 dimensional stuff with Kayle making her just a zealot.

I'm pretty tired of these "it's relative" answer because it approaches only half of the issue. You guys are making the hard work to make even Darkin relatable while making any "holy" figure detached by anything human-like and what is usually defined as good morals in order to turn them into zealous rampaging fire breathers that want to eradicate the mortals because they are impure.

Edit: I wanted to add a good example of Riot writing that offers non 2-dimentional characters who actually offer a relative look on good and evil: Jayce and Viktor. Those 2 are well done because have fallacies and virtues that create a good contrast without making one of them entirely a good/bad guy. This means that you are able to do it, it just looks like you don't want to do it when certain factions/creatures are involved.

RiotRiot Scathlocke17 votes

You're suggesting that everyone agrees with you, which data shows us is not true. Even this argument is relative.

What you, in EUW, consider "good" might not be what other players/cultures in other real-world regions consider "good"... and vice versa.

We're aiming to create a globally resonant fantasy setting.

Stars Shaper47 votes

Yeah in Europe we don't think that purging an entire city because of a single killer is something a holy figure representing justice would do_(*)_, maybe in NA you are used to this sort of things... (Are we seriously going to take nationality in account now?)

Anyway you didn't answer again and again it's a "we want to shuffle the stereotipes" mantra.

(*) If you want to propose actually a good reason behind a so extreme action maybe you should take a look at Warcraft 3.

RiotRiot Scathlocke12 votes

You know I'm British, right?

Stars Shaper38 votes

My only information came from the brackets next to your name.

Anyway, lets not discuss over what morality is in different regions/nations, it's a mine field.

Again, my main concern is that what happened to Kayle is also happening to every1 else, it's not just a "making things deeper and less black&white", it's making every good character building a dark side that usually becomes their dominant factor hidden behind a look of holyness.

I'm really concerned about anything that used to display a chivalrius or "holy" characteristics being turned into the Spanish Inquisition and I'm seeing this happening for every1, especially in Demacia. I know there are examples of "pureness" but thos are really minor and usually turn into: being victim of the situation (Lux), being deluded about the state of things (Garen), being too innocent and dumb (Galio). There is no redeeming factor in any Demacian that isn't Taric (and he doens't seem to get the spotlight anywhere, he's basically unexistant). There is also J4 but that's still someting building up.

ChunLii6 votes

Jarvan was ruined to. Now everyone in court knows Shyvana is well Shyvana and they don’t get rid of her because of J4’s influence. It makes Jarvan less of a good character who was taking a huge risk with Shyvana’s real identity and is now more of a hypocrite.

Stars Shaper11 votes

I don't think that makes him more or less good, it just deletes part of the tension of the situation.

ChunLii6 votes

It does though. It makes Jarvan and everyone else in court a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is bad. It’s also a really and reflection on Demacia.

Stars Shaper10 votes

Yeah but working on the hypocrisy of the court in order to change things for the betterment not only of non-magics is something good. His character is still too unexplored to say much about this to be honest.

King Braum4 votes

Speaking of data,

If I may ask, given that we're on 140+ champs by this point, is there a chance that Riot will attempt to revive some of the lost elements of the game that target more niche audiences so the game can truly have a champion for everyone?

Such as the horiffic monster archetype which sort of died with Swain and Urgot. Or the good natured monster which died with Galio. Or even the tragic champion that straight up made you feel depressed for playing him, looking at Old Maokai.

Given how big the roster is I personally would like to see more of these archetypes return to league, though I'm worried that the focus on data and trying to make a champion fit for the many over the few will greatly hinder that ever happening.

333lom3 votes

This! League used to be "there's a champion for everybody" and now it's very close to being "every champion is for everyone" which just makes everything feel and look the same.

I miss the ugly and sad monster characters and weird visual designs.

Nevrankroaton11 votes

You realize that even in catholicism, angel are true impersonnal creature with no true emotions or real empathy right?

Old Kayle wasn't less zealous either.

Valaran Nara3 votes

[{quoted}](name=Stars Shaper,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=0IEctYqf,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-02-19T20:14:00.673+0000)

Ok, then why once again the angelic figure gets dehumanized and goes into a zealous rampage while the "dark character" gets to be the more human like again? You did good on 2 dimensional stuff with Kayle making her just a zealot.

The thing is, light can be blinding, and Kayle took her "justice" to an extreme measure. Not only that, but the one thing to keep in mind was that angels were never "human" to begin with as they always had an air of distance. And if you think about the light and dark when it comes to humanity, I want you to really take a moment and look at where we are on the spectrum as a race.

if a being of darkness and a being of light approaches, we all know what we SHOULD theoretically say. "The light." But when it comes to people in emotional turmoil, angsty teenagers, or any random sarcastic internet troll will tell you: "We gravitate towards the dark."

So for "The Light" to be the super good in our minds, the dark would have to be stereotypical evil damnation. And Netflix still have to tell people that TED BUNDY IS NOT A SEXUAL ICON! He's a serial killer.


That, and if you want to wash any of that away, we can always look at it as an "Era of Times." If you think about comics in the 50s, it was so black and white with "Good is Good" and "Evil is Evil" that there is no confusion. For this era of writing, it's possible that this writing isn't actually "better" but more servicable of the collective consciousness of morality and what is considered good or evil. Or simply "good writing vs bad writing."

Afterall, we still have people who hates anything with super heroes cussing, even if it would have made sense for their personality. We all know how much a person can swear in a typical day let alone hour long conversation. Just one swear word, and hell breaks loose.

Stars Shaper16 votes

This can happen once or twice, not all the friggin times. The did it with God King Garen, they did it with ALL of Demacia, they did it now with Kayle. The only character like this that got saved is Taric but I wouldn't be surprised for him to pay his "being Demacian" original sin.

Quepha54 votes

It seems silly to completely throw away these concepts for the entire roster when they are important elements of myth and legend. Maybe nuance is appropriate for describing the actions of a nation that has many complex goals, but for some individual characters it's fun to play a valiant hero or an irredeemable jerk.

You can't really argue that Singed had a good excuse for his experiments and there's really no reason to try and justify them because the people who like Singed like him BECAUSE he is a jerk.

RiotRiot Scathlocke27 votes

Was Darth Vader good or evil?

Discuss.

UomoAfide70 votes

That's... like the worst possible example you could choose...

Ralanr4 votes

They're trying to ask us to look at it from the perspective of those doing the act. It's easy to judge as an outside observer, but when you're the one doing it you don't really notice.

That's why "Are we the baddies?" sketch even works in the first place.

Quepha29 votes

When the prequels gave a look into Anakin's perspective, his status went from "Evil," to "Evil, but also stupid."

Ralanr6 votes

The prequels just showed how Anakin was easily corruptible and it showed how the Jedi basically had to indoctrinate people at a young age to keep loyalty. It showed flaws of both “good people” and it all came tumbling down on a lack of trust and who believed who was truly evil.

Perspective matters.

Quepha27 votes

Anakin, an adult: "I must slaughter these children for a vague promise that may personally benefit me in the future" You, an intellectual: "This is an understandable decision because one time his trust was betrayed"

Ralanr8 votes

Oh no he was far off the deep end by then, hence why he justifies slaughtering children.

Not once in that situation did Anakin think he was evil, this is basically Kayle lighting a city on fire. She thought she was doing the right thing and in the end she blamed her emotions over her actions rather than admit she was just wrong.

A Superb Villain21 votes

Moral relativity is the perfect rhetoric for marginalizing saints and sinners.

Anytime someone brings it up in philosophy I encourage them to interview victims of a crime; they always bring back the most interesting essays.

Quepha14 votes

{quoted}

Oh no he was far off the deep end by then, hence why he justifies slaughtering children.

i.e. evil. An evil act that can't be realistically justified to indicate that the character is evil.

The writer’s obsession with creating morally ambiguous characters has blinded them to the fact that they made Kayle into an extremely unrealistic, unrelatable character because her own actions are internally inconsistent. She feels less real because it feels like the writers thought “oh she did a good thing we have to balance it out by making her do a bad thing even if it doesn’t make sense.”

NotaRobot10065 votes

We can at least blame some of the stupid on the Jedi Order.

Those guys aren't even remotely qualified to raise children.

Ralanr5 votes

At least have an art class instead of emotional suppression.

NotaRobot10065 votes

And maybe don't say yes when a slave army shows up on your doorstep.

RiotRiot Scathlocke18 votes

Hard disagree.

He was the original villain. He was the ultimate evil guy. Then his story developed over two sequel movies, where he ultimately tried to atone for what he had done. Then loads more stories built out the depth. Then the prequels, etc etc.

So. Was Darth Vader good or evil?

Discuss.

Hellioning71 votes

Evil. The fact he had sympathetic backstory and he eventually redeemed himself does nothing to change the fact he helped prop up the Emperor's reign of terror and killed many resistance members.

Like, he killed a bunch of 'younglings', dude. Please tell me you're not trying to 'moral ambiguity' someone who killed kids.

Mira Arya Enthe6 votes

"It's just perspective. If you have a sympathetic backstory it is okay to kill 6 million people!" Fedora tip

/s

Quepha37 votes

Like seven people have already said evil with very little in the way of disagreement.

When Darth Vader showed up as a playable character in the last battlefront game people wanted to force choke and slash up people and feel like an evil jerk. When he showed up in Rogue One people were excited to see him force choke and kill just to intimidate and act like an evil jerk.

It seems like you want moral ambiguity to make the characters more realistic, but a view of morality as 100% relative is also not reflective of reality: Chattel Slavery wasn't morally correct back when everyone thought it was, killing other people for fun isn't morally correct because the killer legitimately enjoys it, and lying to someone in order to gaslight them isn't moral even if you think the only way for them to be happy is to make them completely dependent on you.

Hellioning33 votes

If you're going for moral ambiguity, Darth Vader is one of the worst people you could have gone with.

He's evil. Everyone thinks he's evil besides a bunch of idiots who prefer aesthetics to actual morality.

RiotRiot Scathlocke18 votes

Darth Vader is unquestionably the villain for much of the story, but he's not the evil mastermind he was originally shown as. He did some utterly abhorrent things, for selfish and spiteful reasons... and yet, he is considered redeemed "in the eyes of the Force" or whatever, by the end.

It's far safer to assign the terms "hero/villain" or "protagonist/antagonist" to stories. We are building stories here, not moral judgements designed to tell people how to live their lives, in the real world.

Basically, if ANY character wakes up in the morning and thinks "What's the most evil thing I can do today?" then that's a hard pass from me, friends.

A Superb Villain48 votes

{quoted} Basically, if ANY character wakes up in the morning and thinks "What's the most evil thing I can do today?" then that's a hard pass from me, friends.

Veigar Bruh. . .

AetherArising3 votes

[{quoted}](name=A Superb Villain,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=0IEctYqf,comment-id=000100030000000400000002,timestamp=2019-02-19T21:16:38.614+0000)

Veigar Bruh. . .

they rewrote veigar to not be as evil anymore dude...

Quepha28 votes

They gave him a reason to be evil, they didn't really make him less evil.

And I think a major appeal of playing Veigar is his unabashed, unironic embrace of the most child-like concept of evil.

NotaRobot100610 votes

And I think a major appeal of playing Veigar is his unabashed, unironic embrace of the most child-like concept of evil.

It really is. Nothing makes me feel better upon finally getting a kill than that adorably over-the-top cackle.

ModJikker4 votes

Is the Dark Side truly evil or is it uncontrolled Dark Side that brings about the evil actions? Is the Light Side truly good or are they in their own way somewhat sinister and unfeeling towards others which brings about a greater darkness? Is it the person or the actions that are evil?

See this is why I love both KOTOR games because, especially 2, really explore this concept. I like how you guys are bringing in these more grey areas to show that (with a few possible exceptions such as celestial/void beings) there are no black/white good/evil people. Everyone has their shadows and everyone, from their perspectives, has their shining light moments. In the end, everyone is just trying to do what they feel is right or correct and that is a very murky grey area when it comes to morals. No one is perfect and I don't think any of the champions should really be either.

This is my way of saying +1 with the lore lately and I very much appreciate the way you are interpreting things and allowing for character growth.

(still unsure about those butt wings though)

Stars Shaper14 votes

But then can you point me where Morgana is objectively at fault in her (or Kayle) bio?

I might have missed it for real but while it's obvious what Kayle's mistekes are it doesn't happen the same with Morgana.

(Note: I'm asking for real and not in an aggresisve way. I'm specifying it because in this thread I've been heaten a lot in my discussion ^^)

ModJikker4 votes

Killing the dude with dark magic? Fighting her sister instead of trying to talk it out? Making assumptions?

Stars Shaper18 votes

A dude that forcibly went to imprison her with zealous rage... it's an excessess of legitimate defense, quite small compared to the purging of an entire city (your father included) because one of your followers was killed.

The fact is exactly this, there is no balance in the wrong doings, Morgana comes out as the absolute good girl of the pair.

ModJikker16 votes

You're missing an important point that is not in Morgana's lore, but Kayle's. Something important that is missing. The city was rioting and was already destroying itself. Morgana apparently did nothing to stop it.

Remember that the lores are going to be effectively from the respective champion's standpoint. From Morgana's standpoint, she had to protect. Was that really what happened? Probably not. She probably could've stopped him in a non-violent way or protected via a shield. Instead, she incinerated him and in the aftermath, the whole city went into chaos and rioting. Kayle came to restore order and, from her perspective, saw her sister as the instigator. If you had a crazy power filled sibling that appeared to have killed someone for no reason and was causing an entire city to revolt and act on their dark emotions and instincts, wouldn't you try to stop her? For the good of the world and to keep the destruction from spreading?

There's an important thing that a lot of people are ignoring from Kayle's lore -- Kayle was compassionate too. She didn't have to listen to Morgana; she could've smited everyone that violated the law despite what Morg pleaded. She didn't though and it was her followers that didn't like this. She chose to be merciful to those that pleaded to her sister. If that isn't showing that she isn't some villainous harbinger of destruction to anyone who is out of line, I don't know what is.

Honestly, it feels like the whole Boards wants to rant about Kayle being evil and Morg being good without looking at the full picture. I had the same arguments with a bunch of people that believed Ezreal was a psychopath/sociopath and only once they saw the full picture did it become clear that he wasn't.

Kayle and Morgana are a split of an aspect and it makes sense that they are two sides of one whole. The Star Wars analogy is good with the whole Dark/Light side. The Aspect of Justice is two parts -- lawful and compassionate, strict and merciful -- at the same time. Being twins born of an aspect, each inherited one of the traits. Kayle is the lawful, strict, righteous justicator that has to hold the higher standard at the cost of her own emotions, feelings, and desires. Morgana is the merciful, human aspect that recognizes the burden that humanity bears and does so at the cost of realizing what is actually right and necessary to keep the world in order and justice preserved. Together, they balance each other out, but without each other, each falls prey to the extreme of their side. Because we are humans, we readers will automatically sympathize with the more human aspect and thus assume they are good when that is not necessarily the case.

Neither are good, neither are bad. Both are just doing what instincts they were born with and being separated by the treachery that Ronas committed, they can no longer balance each other as they always did.

Kayle is "good"; she uphold the laws and justice of the universe and if she doesn't the world will descend into rioting and chaos resulting in nothing but death and destruction. Kayle is "evil" in that she smites people without question to cleanse the sin that she, being righteous, cannot tolerate and levels whole cities to bring order.

Morgana is "good" as she understands humanity and has a deep connection with human emotions that allows her to understand and help those that wish to atone. Morgana is "evil" in that she does not stop the chaos and focuses too much on her own emotions, bitterness, thoughts, and feelings to see what things need to be done in order to keep the world from anarchy.

Does that make sense?

Stars Shaper17 votes

It makes sense yes but not with the magnitude you are giving it.

Once again, did Kayle decide to sedate the revolt? No she was going to eradicate the entire population. Was Kayle compassionate? Yes but only through Morgana's pleads. I even liked that part, it looked like the 2 were in a good and constructive relationship.

As others have pointed out, Kayle zealotry was always a branch of her character but it was in contrast with the dismay and destruction that Morgana brought. Now she falls into it with a really weak trigger and at such an extreme that it overwrites a lot of her good doing.

What I am finding oversatured with is that the "light" side is now only a bunch of totaitarists and zealots with half the redeeming factors of the "dark" side and this is happening in almost every situation. They said they just wanted to shaken up things but they just inverted the roles, creating new 2-dimensional tropes of "the good which is really just as evil, if not more, of the actual evil".

I bet that if you gave the 2 bios to ppl who don't know about Kayle and Morgana and censor all the parts where they are described physically you'll get that ppl would draw Kayle as the demonic figure and Morgana like some sort of caring angel. They didn't deepen the characters they simply exchanged their outfits.

Jerry SeinfeId3 votes

You can't really argue that Singed had a good excuse for his experiments and there's really no reason to try and justify them because the people who like Singed like him BECAUSE he is a jerk.

that's not true either. You can't just look at singed and say he's evil. When you look at it from his perspecitve nothing he did was wrong. Morally what he did was awful, his reasoning isn't though. I like singed because he just doesn't adhere to common morals, what he does isn't wrong to him but just a means to an end. He's willing to go any length and cross any line for his craft. People often bring up him gassing most of ionia, but in the end He only delivered a product to noxus.

This is why i'm afraid of lore for him. hurting people or being evil should never be his goal. Warwick was just an "ingredient" in his experiment, not a person to torture. I wanna make it clear i don't think He's a good guy or that what he did was good, but i don't see him as an evil jerk.

Quepha9 votes

[{quoted}](name=Jerry SeinfeId,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=0IEctYqf,comment-id=000100030001,timestamp=2019-02-19T23:59:09.924+0000)

that's not true either. You can't just look at singed and say he's evil.

Watch me:

Singed <---- that guy is evil

When you look at it from his perspecitve nothing he did was wrong. Morally what he did was awful, his reasoning isn't though.

In the same line you say what he did was not morally wrong yet also morally awful, this is a contradiction.

You're talking about his reasoning and his perspective, but those don't change things that we consider to be morally right or wrong. He is interesting because his reasoning and perspective lead him to do undeniably immoral things.

He doesn't need to want to hurt others to be considered evil (but it helps!), in his case the fact that he considers the lives of other people to be less important than his experiments leads him to perform evil and be considered evil.

Jerry SeinfeId1 votes

He doesn't need to want to hurt others to be considered evil (but it helps!), in his case the fact that he considers the lives of other people to be less important than his experiments leads him to perform evil and be considered evil.

but then you're looking at it in black and white too. I never said what he did wasn't morally wrong, just that to him he didn't do anything that wasn't worth the result. morality doesn't concern him, there's no decision to do what's immoral/wrong he just doesn't care. His reason isn't evil, which is why i can't see him as just an evil character.

Quepha13 votes

Not all things are Black or White, but evaluating Singed definitely falls under something that is. Ruining the lives of innocents in order to perfect ways to commit genocide is an evil act. Reasoning that the lives of innocents are worth so little is evil reasoning.

Just because the line between good and evil can be fuzzy in some situations doesn't mean there aren't clear examples of good and evil that we know aren't even close to the line.

Jerry SeinfeId1 votes

where in his lore is it stated his goal is perfecting genocide? that's what you make out of it. you're complaining about stuff beeing black and white but then say things should be black n white going as far as using shit like "lives of the innocent". you act like he goes out of his way to ruin peoples lives just for the sake of it.

if anything his only goal that's been hinted at right now is immortallity through yorick.

Mira Arya Enthe4 votes

Every, single, evil, person has some justification. Even sociopaths can give you some reason. Whether it be because "the voices in my head told me to" or "I just wanted to free the oppressed". Evil actions are not excused by good intentions.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

More from Story, Art, & Sound

More by Stars Shaper