Boards›Story, Art, & Sound

A Critique on Scathlocke/Lore Team's view on Good and Evil

ModCaptainMårvelous·2/21/2019, 2:22:19 AM·103 votes·20,213 views

So just so we're clear, this isn't meant to be a big ol' flame thread. I don't want this to just be a giant call-out thread. Rather, I want to dissect this and explain why I think that there is some room for two-dimensional good and evil. That said, agree or disagree at your leisure.

#The Thread

This whole thing started in This Thread by Stars Shaper, who lamented that good and evil were blurring too much in League of Legends. Scathlock went into this thread to discuss things. You can read the whole thing on your own but I wanted to pull out some quotes to solidify what SEEMS to be the position here:

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

How about "good meaningless, evil meaningless"? Light and dark and subjective, too.

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.

So from this, we can come to understand a few things:

  • Riot's lore team does not want any black or white morality in the game as it is a two-dimensional trope.
  • Good/Evil are meaningless. It's the action that should be judged.
  • Global standards need to be understood.

I might be wrong (and if Scath wants to correct me, feel free!) but I wanted to run through these things.

#The Critique

So there's a lot to unpack here. Mainly that Riot seems to want a "realistic" fantasy setting with as much grey morality in the world. If you're familiar with the terms Noblebright (A bright colorful world where the actions of one can make a difference) and Grimdark (A bleak and depressing world where the individual rarely, if ever, can change the course of history), League would seemingly fall under Nobledark: The world isn't clear and there's plenty of horror, strife and sadness with the occasional spark of hope but the actions of one IE Champions can make a difference.

My main problem with this is that in constricting these moralities to make EVERYTHING just outright grey, it ends up feeling...well, less realistic and goes slightly against one of League's great attributes, which is that there is a story and a champion for everyone.

In life, there are people who set out to do good and charitable actions to the best of their ability. In life there are also people so hateful and self-absorbed that their actions cannot be defended. I won't give examples because we all probably know someone like that in both categories. The thing is that having these people to compare to gives us a wide array of morality in life. We have metaphorical heroes to call on. We have metaphorical villains to hate on. Even if you can make an argument for something, sometimes it's not a good argument and selfish or cruel.

More important than realism, however, is that League is a game with 140+ champions. Champions people love. Champions for everyone. Do you want to be a snarky anime villain wielding a scythe of a fallen race of demigods? We got you covered. How about the preacher for the dead who sees death as the ultimate gift? Don't worry pal. Want to just be an annoying little gremlin who puts turrets everywhere with an IQ higher than even that previous character who just pressed R? We can do that.

It's why I'm so disappointed that there is apparently no room for that goodness in League.

As a personal anecdote, I like designing characters. I love designing champions for league. Some good, some bad. However, I like having varying morality. One is a pure-hearted soul who overcomes his moments of doubt and always prefers diplomacy to pacifism. One is just an out-and-out hateful creature whose only goal is to kill humans because they're worse than he is. There's no defending the latter and the former doesn't really DO evil. I'm a person who, while I enjoy realism, also likes there to be heroes and villains. Hell, the reason I made that first character was because League hasn't had an earnest, good "hero" since Braum.

What pains me is that with these words, you're telling me that there isn't a place for me anymore. You're telling me "No we don't do that hero/villain stuff anymore". "No we don't have just villainy". And yeah, if every hero was that way it'd be boring...but why can't we have some of these heroes in League? Why can't we have some wicked baddies? To really understand that grey line between good and bad, you need to see burning, pure goodness and wicked, malicious evil.

#Conclusion

I can understand wanting to make league more nuanced but the removal of good and evil pains me. I'm probably not the only one that feels this way either. And yes, League is a global audience, but that's part of the joy with having 140+ characters and more to come: Some can be good. Some can be evil. Some can really tiptoe that line. Some can cross it and some can reaffirm themselves and show that their paths are set in stone. The beauty and joy of league is that everyone can find someone to love.

Again, please don't take this as a callout and please don't consider this an attack against your writing. I enjoy league's stories. Just every once in a while, I'd like to see Superman save the day. If Superman never saves anyone, then you end up with Dawn of Justice or Man of Steel.

And boy, those movie fuckin' sucked.

QUICK EDIT: Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that there should ONLY be good/evil simplistic morality in league. However, I do think there is room for all types of characters from pure good guys to pure bad guys and everything in between.

127 Comments

I love cowboys2/21/2019, 2:25:25 AM35 votes

They seem to be going down the same "morally gray" path that the WoW writers are. Which basically just boils down to "Make the former good guys do tons of bad stuff but it's totally fine because of one barely justifiable reason".

It makes for kind of poor storytelling and Worldbuilding if you ask me.

ModThe Djinn2/21/2019, 2:48:10 AM24 votes

I can understand wanting to make league more nuanced but the removal of good and evil pains me.

New Aatrox is pretty obviously a monster. He just has a motivation for that monstrosity that's more than "be evil." He's pretty much past redemption, but you can understand why he is the way that he is.

Dr. Mundo is a merciless killer. We just have some insight into why. He's the hero of his own story.

Gangplank has basically no redeeming characteristics. Neither really does Elise.

We also have some characters that are still reliably paragons of good. Braum stands out. Ivern stands out. Lux stands out, to the point where she puts Demacia in a worse position by trusting someone she maybe shouldn't have. Rakan and Poppy and Neeko are all incredibly positive and "good-aligned."

To me, it's a representation of the fact that Superman is always Superman, but he IS shaped by his experiences and his environment. Even at his best he has flaws and weaknesses. Garen is a paragon of Demacia and a noble and just warrior -- but he shares his country's belief that magic is harmful. Because of this, he fights it -- out of a love for his country and a belief (even if mistaken) that it is letting his people down NOT to. It doesn't really make him less good so much as it makes him perhaps uninformed, and opens up the potential of him realizing what it might cost him to hold those values.

So the people who want to play monsters still can. The people who want to play heroes still have heroes available. It's just that when viewed from a lens of getting to see the whole picture we may see other factors or outside forces that cause us to reconsider whether that character has room to grow and overcome their own biases.

Minimac20002/21/2019, 4:42:24 AM21 votes

I myself am a very black and white person and I absolutely abhor all these noncommittal blah "grey" characters, because they just simply dont stand for anything and it feels to me like a cheap story because of it. This relativistic everyone's a hero in their own mind therefore everyone sucks perspective.... well it just sucks. The riven/yasuo story from earlier this year I think portrayed a redemption arc perfectly. You don't have to have a perfect past to do what is right and you don't have be pure evil to do a bad thing and regret it. But that doesn't change the fact that there is objective good and objective evil in every world and saying there isn't is just a flat out lie

GreenKnight2/21/2019, 2:42:57 AM21 votes

Am i the only one that thinks most of those stories feel... experimental? Like they came from novice writers who might have talents, but those are not yet refined and they lack the knowledge necessary to make engaging stories about good and evil?

I think it stems from how they built the world after that terrible retcon. It's like they went "Ok, let's make the characters more diverse and inclusive!" (morally of course, i'm not talking about politics or sexuality), and then kinda lost their way, going a bit Mary Suish, which is a mistake many young authors tend to make. I mean, was removing Varus's family before he jumped on the bad choice of accepting the evil he was supposed to protect, and making him into what he is now, a fuse of two lovers and a darkin, really made to "advance the storyline"? Or was it a way to convey the authors feelings?

I have nothing against morally ambiguous characters, but sometimes simplicity is better than complexity. I mean, look at Braum (unless he was changed too, and i was unaware of that). He's THE fictional hero, a legend everyone loves. He protects the weak, and even if someone wronged him, he's quick to forgive them and he's able to even forge friendships with his previous enemies. What's wrong with white side character like that?

Rebonack2/21/2019, 3:08:43 AM19 votes

I'll say I don't mind so much Kayle being pushed toward the Justice side of things and Morganna being pushed toward the Mercy side of things, but I really would have liked it if the portrayal of Justice and Mercy hadn't been so one dimensional.

The best of justice is creating a world were people feel safe, where people are encouraged to be the best person they can possibly be by allowing them to grow and flourish and improve.

The worst of justice is creating tyrannies where people fear for their safety, where people are stifled by the terror of what will happen if they step out of line.

The best of mercy is giving people a second chance to those who are truly deserving, of having empathy for the imperfections of humanity and understanding that everyone fails sometimes.

The worst of mercy is allowing injustice and evil to run rampant; a deep cruelty to those who are victimized by it.

The new Kayle/Morg lore is only showing us the negative side of justice and the positive side of mercy. If Riot really wanted to show us living, breathing, three dimensional characters, then we need to see the good and evil of both ends of the spectrum.

Oleandervine2/21/2019, 3:04:36 PM8 votes

Well written! I think you've summed up a lot of my issues I have with the lore over the past couple of years. I think a prime example of this is Zac. His old lore, he was loved by a pair of scientists who saved him, and they raised him as their child, and showed him the love and life in the world. He became a super chipper, happy guy willing to risk his goo to protect that world.

Then they ass-blasted his lore and murdered his parents at the end, so now he's degraded himself to skulking in the gutters and pipeworks of Zaun, randomly popping out to fight crime if he sees it. He went from as close to a Superman character as League had, to a stained, Batman character for no reason whatsoever. There was no reason to blight Zac's lore like that, to strip away the love he had in his life that shaped him, that gave him a reason to fight and protect his home. They could have EASILY had Zac's parents move out of Zaun to somewhere else that was safer from the Chem Barons, like Noxus or Ionia or some remote hillside not affiliated with anywhere if they wanted them removed from the picture. But no, they chose to kill them, because of whatever reason they believe that happiness can't exist in the lore.

Zapzya2/21/2019, 2:57:58 AM7 votes

What about Nunu though for recently developed good characters? And maybe Kai'Sa, although people see her as a monster.

In regards to Scathlocke on how good and evil are relative, I disagree. There is some common ground in regards to morals for most humans. Even if the characters don't perceive things as good or evil (because no sane character thinks they are evil), as an audience we can definitely judge things as good or evil. For example, I don't think anyone can argue that Thresh is a good guy, he tortures peoples' souls for fun. You would have to really stretch it to say he was even neutral on the good-evil scale. Even if Thresh was tortured himself in life, it doesn't justify his actions. Even if he decided what he was doing was wrong, it doesn't change that he was evil.

Warlord Dienekes2/21/2019, 2:55:44 AM7 votes

I can only say that I stand with you on this one. And I found some of Scathe’s arguments on that thread absolutely baffling.

Ifneth2/21/2019, 5:57:53 AM6 votes

Yeah, abandoning good and evil as petty notions sounds much like what an evil person would do.

Stars Shaper2/21/2019, 6:11:36 PM5 votes

Thank you for taking time and make a more peaceful conversation about what's going on in terms of lore.

First of all, I agree that entirely positive and entirely negative characters are not doomed to be 2-dimensional ones, there is a lot of depth that one can add without making either a "good guy" spiteful or a "bad guy" likeable. Whatever the case though, there must be substance behind what's written.

(Edit: I wanted to add that a character entirely positive doesn't mean that he/she is without faults, take a look at Taric for example, his whole story starts for his faults and they don't get ereased just because he becomes the best Aspect of all)

In the case at hand, Kayle and Morgana, we don't even see these shift, what we see is Kayle being turned into a simple, 2-dimensional evil character because everything bad that happens has the root in Kayle's doing, meanwhile Morgana plays the role of the perfect Aspect who hasn't lost her humanity and this makes her able to redeem ppl, there is nothing of what she does that turns into something bad. This is what my main complain was about, I've been told that I shouldn't expect Kayle to be good because they were going into a more grey-zone characters, yet Morgana is entirely "white".

An example I happen to bring out a lot of a well done characterization when we talk about "not entirely good/evil" champions is the one involving Jayce and Viktor. Those two are the perfect incarnations of what Scathlocke was talking about and I really enjoyed both of them, I didn't feel betrayed because Jayce used to be the awesome hero and now it's a jerkier Tony Stark.

GreenLore2/21/2019, 12:46:34 PM5 votes

I'm honestly confused that so many people are angry with Morgana and Kayle becoming more grey characters(granted Morgana comes off as a bit too good in their lores) when that was the whole point of their lores to begin with.

And while they made the motivations of some villains more reasonable,that still doesn't justify their actions.

Aatrox might suffer but that doesn't justify his goal to slaughter everyone simply because he hopes that this could free him from his suffering.

Lissandra might want to prevent the watchers from destroying the world, but that doesn't excuse her to kill everyone that tries to find out some stuff about Avarosa or Seryldra.

And the list goes on.

Just because a villains actions are understandable doesn't mean that they are justified.

LordRedStone Nr12/21/2019, 1:19:27 PM5 votes

In my opinion, they just overshoot it. Obviously, they are trying to correct older black and white stories into more gray stuff - which is fine! Skull bastion, anyone? I prefer current Noxus to "hurr durr we bad and kill", because it's much more fleshed out and also morally gray. The problem is that it's a little to much and Noxus are almost portrayed as the good guys, while Demacia turned racist. They went from Black / White to Gray / Gray and just kept going till they hit White / Black. The basic notion of showing the bad side of Demacia is fine, it's just too much!

Eleshakai2/21/2019, 2:49:00 PM5 votes

I have generally liked most of League's writing... but the lack of paragons/villains is becoming almost a trope itself. It's getting to the point of predictability. And that's where it becomes a problem. I appreciate them trying to avoid making everything dark or light, and adding shades of grey is fantastic. But when everything becomes grey, it's just as much of a problem as if nothing's grey.

Madjack012/21/2019, 4:33:13 AM4 votes

I don't know the lore well enough so please bear with me if I'm going to say something uninformed.

I think it's less about the removal of the idea of pure good and evil and more about stepping away from simply labelling something as such. That's because there is absolutely nothing to be gained from saying that something is good or evil. They neither make for interesting characterisation nor do they tell you very much about a champ since what these concepts mean depends vastly on taught morality and the context of the situation.

If you ever write a book, you'll come to a point early on where you have to define and describe your characters. Yoir main character for example. You probably already have in mind that this is a character fighting for the people, on the side of light, who's a shining hero... a good character. However, when you fill the blanks with preferences, desires, goals, needs, hatreds, quirks, strengths, weaknesses, ticks, relationships, emotional/behavioural rules of thumb in both a positive and negative way, then you are going to have to ask yourself what all those things mean for a good character. You will quickly realise that if you neglected your characters negative aspects and weaknesses, the bridge between who your character is and being good will be very short, predictable and quite frankly boring. If you mix in negative elements, which we all have, you wil have to focus on how these conflict with his positive elements and how they translate to being good.

The thing is though that what counts here is the process, not the outcome. For example you have a character that goes out every day to slay terrifying monsters that would otherwise raid a village. He started doing this because he wanted to protect people. What a hero! You could end the story here or add a grand epos where the hero stops the evil monster swarms once and for all. There is zero dynamic in the story or the character though. So instead you add personal dilemmas and moral difficulties which make it truly special that the hero goes out every day to protect the village. This is the process. The villagers now have their own agenda and pushing power in the story. They still follow archaic believes and witch hunts are not uncommon. One day a rejected man accuses a young maiden, a friend to the hero, of being a witch and she gets burned at the stake. The man acted out of malice (he was hurt for being rejected, some might even empathize with him) and the villagers simply acted out of fear or ignorance. What does the hero do? Well he still protects the village because he is good. He doesn't do so however without great pain, questioning the point of protecting people that burn innocents, realising that there is some darkness which you must accept (because he also protects that darkness)... and so on. It isn't interesting that he's supposedly good here. The process he went through to still keep being good is interesting.

Or maybe you give it a more darker turn. The hero started to isolate himself from the villagers, appalled by what they've done. However, he still goes out every day. Not to protect, at least not mainly, but because he realised that he enjoys killing monsters or maybe because he is afraid of the prospect of doing something else than what he knows. Is he still good then?

I think what Scath meant is that the latter question with the inevitable lable doesn't matter. The more complex your story and character the more good and evil fade into the background and the more the process that leads up to them comes into focus. That they are subjective as hell only amplifies this. That doesn't mean though that you can't have a classic hero.

At least that's what I think.

CarameI Frappe2/21/2019, 7:13:35 PM4 votes

While i'm not an author or talented writer that has a degree in literature ... even I have to admit Riot's been trying too hard with making the good guys 'questionable' while the bad guys actually aren't all that bad. By trying to make everyone line up on the gray scale, it starts to stray from reality and more into this territory that good guys are actually really bad with one justified excuse while the bad guys are actually misunderstood whom only seem evil but are mostly anti-heroes if you think about it.

As someone who's been into role play online with people, a major rule we tend to have is .... Make your characters fleshed out naturally without trying to complicate everything to justify something. In other words, it's okay to have them do questionable things, but don't make it so borderline bad and then try to say "But he's considered good!" when it's just going to complicate how the other RPers feel towards your character.

Disig2/21/2019, 5:46:49 PM4 votes

My problem isn't that they want to go morally grey. My problem is they seem to be absolutely blind to the fact that they aren't writing morally grey. Demacia is clearly an oppressive state, which is bad. Kayle is clearly over the top lawful stupid, which is bad. Morgana actually wants to help people. This is clearly good. We don't SEE any motivation in Morgana to make us think she's even evil aside from her edgy look and some snarky voice lines. The grey area they may be going for here is just not believable, if it's there at all.

But they did a decent job with Noxus. Here we have a military state, conquerors. you'd think, damn that's bad. But in the stories we get we see that places under Noxus rule DO see an improvement of quality of life. It may be based off of might is right and the strong should survive, but there are good things that come from it. THAT is morally grey. Killing and imprisoning mages in a world where we KNOW magic is a thing that can be good or evil is inherently BAD. Demacia has no redeeming qualities at this moment. And what I find worse is that in discussions like these when people bring this up the comments just get ignored. They only seem to reply to the people they can easily counter argue. To me this either means they know and don't want to bring attention to it, or they're thinking about it and considering what to do in future stories.

I'm really hoping in future stories they show us more of the grey for Demacia. It really needs some redeeming qualities highlighted. Not individual characters, but the country as a whole. Showcase the quality of life of the citizens, the more fair laws. What is Demacia doing that is actually good? Because right now we're not seeing it.

As for inherently good and evil characters, I think that has merit so far as they are well written. Black and white characters CAN be well written and not cliche. And it worries me that thus far by their statements, Riot doesn't seem to think that's true. I agree with OP that they shouldn't shy away from good/evil characters, especially since by doing so they'll end up alienating part of their player base. You can have good writing and good/evil.

Phhase2/21/2019, 9:31:52 PM4 votes

Yeah, paragons and monolithic evils are what make the morally grey characters more interesting. We need proper contrast.

Roberick2/21/2019, 12:17:54 PM3 votes

The new writers and especially the lead writer seem to be under the misguided impression that Game of Thrones and ASOIAF are the apex of grey morality and deep storytelling, when in reality the books are mostly misery porn while the show is embarrassing to watch after Season 2. I don't think I like this trend in video games of taking cues from that and making everything "morally grey" and "actually there's no difference between good and bad." If you want real morality and philosophy in your video game, a good start would be not taking cues from a show where a little girl teleports all over the continent to stab people in the back.

Pierce The Veal2/21/2019, 7:53:14 AM3 votes

The worst part is it’s entirely built on opinion. As if there aren’t purely villainous and purely angelic existances. Sure the saintly types will stumble at times or perhaps have things they dislike, and the villains might have likes and loves and whatnot, but that doesn’t make them grey. a serial killer who takes good care of his family is still a serial killer, and if you had to paint him a color, is closer to black than at all being grey.

True absolutes are rare sure, but they do exist. But that’s not all; someone who is 99% black and 1% white definitely would be called as black, and vice versa.

People who run, say, large oiling industries are doing it for a profit, know very well they are dooming future generations, and yet continue to do it. They are an example of an absolute black. Doctors without borders forgo their comfort and risk their lives to save people, they can easily be considered an absolute white.

What Riot is doing is simple. By trying to avoid the 2 dimensional trope, they are falling into the 1 dimensional trope. They are greywashing all of their characters.

Thefrostyviking2/21/2019, 9:34:40 AM3 votes

Having skimmed through i do think i agree with you OP, having only the "grey" characters hurts the world building as much as having only "good" &"bad".

Real world demands a mix of the three which i think Riot could sit down and chew on for a while x)

Colors lose most if not all their meaning if they are the only ones that exist, they are at their best when there are many adding to a greater whole to be admired.

ChunLii2/21/2019, 12:01:13 PM3 votes

I’ve said it before. Here is list of darker characters that Riot did well making morally gray while still staying respectful to the character: Camille, Zed, Viktor, Swain. They should look back at what makes these characters so good and well-written.

Also Riot is in some sort of weird mentality that an outright villain is a poor character and people won’t like it. Look at Jhin, a lot of people find his character interesting and love him for it. (in fact much more than Sylas who is a really poor example of the morally grey trope). Sylas is a poor example of morally grey because he is either one extreme or the other. He is either sympathetic or a terrorist. There is no middle ground with him. All he is there is to make Demacia look bad through his overreacting personality and of course when he a terrorist manchild it’s blamed on oh so tragic past.

Lord Kagetane2/21/2019, 4:01:10 PM3 votes

Do you want to be a snarky anime villain wielding a scythe of a fallen race of demigods? We got you covered. How about the preacher for the dead who sees death as the ultimate gift? Don't worry pal. Want to just be an annoying little gremlin who puts turrets everywhere with an IQ higher than even that previous character who just pressed R? We can do that.

You want pyramids? we got em

RJay1232/21/2019, 6:10:19 PM3 votes

This... just wow. Dude this was amazing. And you know, it highlights all of the problems I had with Morgana and Kayle's story. It could have been a time to introduce two characters that embody both sides of moral values. But it's clear Riot had a different idea here and I read a very level headed explanation for Kayle and Morgana's personalities yesterday basically placing them as the two aspects of Justice, judgement and forgiveness. And the problems seemed solved for the most part but one remained. Why not express that? The reason so many people are upset is because the stories aren't even. Kayle is cast off as some Puritan fanatic for the most superficial of reasons, and if I'm going to be brutally honest, casting a genocidal purist as an angel, which is supposed to be a representative of love and goodness in my faith, is rather insulting (so take off all the points in the "global inclusivity" part of this. It alienates many people with this alone), but I try not to let that cloud my judgement. So, getting back to my point is this, Disig covers it perfectly. The way Riot is steering these stories paints many characters we thought were good as... well... not good. And that kinda sucks because there is nothing about them that we like anymore. vvv

{quoted}

My problem isn't that they want to go morally grey. My problem is they seem to be absolutely blind to the fact that they aren't writing morally grey. Demacia is clearly an oppressive state, which is bad. Kayle is clearly over the top lawful stupid, which is bad. Morgana actually wants to help people. This is clearly good. We don't SEE any motivation in Morgana to make us think she's even evil aside from her edgy look and some snarky voice lines. The grey area they may be going for here is just not believable, if it's there at all.

I'm really hoping in future stories they show us more of the grey for Demacia. It really needs some redeeming qualities highlighted. Not individual characters, but the country as a whole. Showcase the quality of life of the citizens, the more fair laws. What is Demacia doing that is actually good? Because right now we're not seeing it.

Bouncemaster Zac2/23/2019, 1:54:02 AM2 votes

I remember when Zac was a weapon-turned-superhero; he was the epitome of comic-book "good:" overcoming one's circumstances to help others. Now he's a knockoff of Marvel's Man-Thing, except he lives in a toxic sewer instead of a magical swamp. Because being an unrelatable emotion-eater is more compelling, or something.