Perfect recipe for a sympathetic immoral main character?

[Elmiwisa]

By "main character" I meant the character whom the player play the role of. The player see the world through this character and have access to private thought and knowledge of the character. This character might have their dialogue box being "Me", and her parents might have dialogue box being "Mom" and "Dad", just to drive the point home.
Since the player usually projected themselves into the main character, the main character should be sympathetic. I am writing a VN and I got some important character in details already, but pretty much all characteristic of the main character is still somewhat unspecified. However, the role of the main character is somewhat clearer, and that role would have to commit certain criminal act, and is rather immoral generally. Hence I am looking for your opinion (with rationale) of how the following ingredient can be mixed together to produce a main character (MC) that is as immoral as possible and yet stay sympathetic, and at what point does the immorality cross the line into unsympathetic.

WARNING: thread might contains nausa-inducing description. If you might find it offensive, or feel sick, you have been warned.


Assume that the MC is a female in the 16-25 age range. The setting is modern time with hint of magic and the supernatural (but nothing can revive a dead person, and there is no ghosts nor time travel), and the MC is in high school/college/graduated school. In particular, once a person is dead, they are really dead-dead.

Physical characteristic: plain? cute? sexy? childish?

Criminal act committed:
-Premeditated violence murder (note that violence also include magical violence, such as a fireball)?
-Premeditated murder using poison?
-Premeditated murder by inflicting terminal long-term disease?
-Kidnapping using violence, and the victim eventually die due to the lack of proper medical attention for the wounds?
-Kidnapping using drug, and the victim eventually die due to the MC's lack of drug knowledge?

How terrifying is the death of the victim?
-Death in sleep.
-Victim is described to scream in pain, but no blood.
-The method described would be very bloody, but the bloodiness is not explicitly mentioned in the text or the graphics.
-Explicitly bloody.

Do the MC commit the act herself? Or made someone do it by...
-Blackmail (threaten with reputation damage because of what that someone did in the past)?
-Direct physical violence threat?
-Manipulation using trickery (ie. that person do what the MC ask because they don't know the full picture)?
-Manipulation by playing on emotion (ie. that person do what being asked knowing the full picture, but the MC pull a "with me or against me" kind of ultimatum)?
-No need for anything, that someone is too mentally immature to realize what they are being asked to do is immoral?

Victim of the act (who is portrayed to have done nothing to deserve it):
-unseen character?
-random minor character with character sprite and line, but have no personal relationship with the MC?
-a morally good important antagonist?
-someone who do not like the MC, but do trust the MC?
-MC's best friend?
-MC's close family member (parents or siblings)?
-MC's unrequited/requited love interest?
-an elder/terminally ill patient under MC's care?

Method of disposing the body:
-Leave it exactly where it happened?
-Leave it in the open to be found?
-Dissolve with alchemy?
-Disintegrate with magic?
-Tribute to summoned devil?
-Burn?
-Chopped to piece, then dispose as garbage separately?
-Throw in a ditch, then cover with dirt?

MC's rationale behind the act:
-Jealousy (not necessarily romantic jealousy)?
-Revenge for minor slight (e.g. stealing cookie)?
-Revenge for something that appear to be major due to an unreasonable misunderstanding (i.e. the MC is severely delusional or paranoid)?
-Do it believing it is for a greater good, but is actually an unreasonable misunderstanding?
-Romantically obsessed with the victim?

The place where the act is committed:
-middle of nowhere?
-private home?
-public place, at night?
-public place, in broad daylight?

The act is committed just before/during the occasion:
-Birthday party (the victim is the one who have the birthday, or is someone closed)?
-Funeral (the victim is someone closed to the departed)?
-Wedding (the victim is the bride or groom)?
-Graduation (the victim is one of those graduated)?
-Childbirth (the victim is a parent of the child, this only count after the child is born)?
-Valentine?
-New Year?
-Chrismas?

The point in story where the act was committed:
-Before the story start, but in recent memory?
-Early in the story (like at prologue or chapter 1)?
-Middle of the story?

Whether the act is shown: off-screen? on-screen as it happen? on-screen but in a flashback?

What private thought process/monologue of the MC that the player can see regarding the act:
-none at all?
-reason why the act is morally justified?
-contemplating potential personal consequence and what needed to be done next?
-contemplating potential consequence to other people and what needed to be done next?
-enjoyment of committing the act?
-annoyance about having to commit the act?
-proud of having the gut to do it?
-completely calm about the whole situation?
-something tangentially related, but have nothing to do with the nature of the act (e.g. see blood on snow, think about strawberry ice cream)?
-forgot/get distracted about the act in a short amount of time?

What the player need to do to see the MC commit act?
-Nothing, it is automatically played?
-Player is given the option to see it (ie. making the MC remember it), but it is already committed (off-screen or in backstory)?
-Player is given the choice to have the MC not committing the act altogether?
-Player is given illusory choice to have the not committing the act (ie. while there are choices, no matter which choice chosen, the MC eventually commit it)?
-The MC will always commit the act, but the player get to choose the victim?
-Player is given the choice (or a sequence of choice), but it is not obvious which one will lead to whether the act is made or not, and the choice is made much earlier; also, it is harder to make the choice that lead to the act being committed than to not (e.g. maybe the player is given a sequence of 3 decision point, and only by choosing to go home, then choosing to visit the kitchen, then choosing to check the cabinet would lead the MC to discover the evidence regarding who steal cookie, leading to a bloody murder of the cookie thief 2 chapter later)?
-Same as above, except that now the choice needed to avoid committing the act is harder to made than the one to commit it (e.g. cookie thief example above, except that now, that particular choice is the only way for the MC to realize that it was mice all along, and any other choice would lead the MC to blame and murder the innocent housemate 2 chapter later)?

What about other aspect of the MC's personality:
-cynicism?
-stoic?
-self-loathing?
-high self-esteem?
-quick and easy mood-swing?
-stepford smiler?
-paranoia?
-devil-may-care attitude?
-childish?
-liar and cheater?
-manipulative?
-confrontational?
-jealousy about anything?
-scary hobbies (e.g. collecting human eyeballs)?
-scary anger management technique (e.g. slowly shred a carpet to bits using sharp knife when angry)?
-torture cute animal for fun?
-torture ugly animal for fun?
-hunt and torture large and scary animal for fun?
-enjoy being popular?
-enjoy being alone?

What about childhood background?
-Have caring and well-educated parents who know how to raise the MC?
-Have caring but utterly incompetent parents who repeatedly harmed the MC due to their ignorance?
-Morally upright and oppressive parent with high expectation?
-Well-to-do family but parents is rarely at home?
-Spoiled by rich parents?
-Emotionally distance family?
-Abandoned by family?
-Abused by family?
-Being in the shadow of a better sibling?
-Parents being murdered?
-Parents murdering each other?

What about the morality of the rest of the cast?
-Everyone else is morally better (better, but not necessarily good) than the MC?
-Everyone else, except some or all of the antagonist, is morally better than the MC?
-Everyone else, except some or all of the antagonist and the MC's allies, is morally better than the MC?
-Morality of most of the cast is ambiguous, and is hinted as such?
-All the MC's allies are morally upright, and is only with the MC because they are poor judge of character and did not know about the act the MC committed?
-All the MC's allies are morally upright, and is only with the MC because they are honor-bounded by an oath?
-All the MC's allies are morally upright, and is only with the MC because the MC is important to them emotionally?

What about other characteristic of the MC?
-Book-smart?
-Skilled combatant?
-Skilled chef?
-Skilled first-aider/nurse, and is holding such a job?
-Skilled magical healer?
-Skilled alchemist?
-Skilled bodyguard, and is holding such job?

Any other thing you can think of to increase the sympathy of the MC?


Thank you for your input. I am hoping for a whole array of idea from you all.

[noeinan]

Okay, I'm going to flat out say you can have her be as amoral as possible and still have people like her-- there is no minimum "sympathy quota." As long as she has some other admirable characteristics then people will still like her. Is she strong? Is she extremely intelligent? Does she perhaps have her own code of honor, but it's very very different from what could be considered normal?

Look at the live action series Dexter. He is a serial killer, but he's cool and has his own code so people love him. While Dexter only kills serial killers, that's not even a necessity for having a likable sociopath. If I recall correctly, there was a real life serial killer who was just an indiscriminate murderer, but happened to be somewhat good looking and so he had fangirls supporting him all across the US while he was running from the police. Some people are obsessed with serial killers, and fascinated by sociopaths.

Now, if you mean a character that will be loved by everyone, that's impossible. But you don't have to worry because as long as she's well written there is a certain subset of the population who are very interested in that kind of thing. (Death Note is another good example. Some people just like things Darker and Edgier or shows with Grey And Gray Morality)

[SundownKid]

There is a line where most normal well-adjusted people will stop feeling sympathetic towards an "evil" character, generally the moral event horizon where they demonstrate that they are a complete monster. A character like Dexter, while evil by any extent of the definition, still has enough of a moral code for the audience to root for him.

As long as the character has, or had some kind of morality but it was forced out of them, they can be a sympathetic character. But, if they started out being evil, and continued on that path, it's hard for people to feel sympathetic towards them.

[trooper6]

I'm also not convinced that a main character has to be sympathetic.

For some people? Yes, the main character has to be sympathetic. I know people who refused to watch the new Battlsestar Galactica or The Shield or The Sopranos or Mad Men because they find none of the characters sympathetic.

But there are people who don't need their main character to be sympathetic.
Of those people, I think you can probably divide them into two main subcategories.

The people who like playing evil as a power fantasy, and the people who like exploring character psychology or tragedy of downfall.

I know lots people who like playing evil as a power fantasy. They are the people who play dark side in Knights of the Old Republic or kill lots of people in Grand Theft Auto. I have played Dungeons and Dragons with these folks. They don't necessarily want the evil main character to be sympathetic...they want their evil main character to be powerful. They want to be all Id, all the time. They want to have catharsis in violence and immorality. They want to be a jerk for a while. If you make your main character evil, but then give them weaknesses or sympathetic tendencies, they will be irritated. They will be super irritated if the evil character loses in the end. They want the evil to triumph over the good. They want to see evil and fee good about it. It is a power fantasy, just like the all good Mary Sue is a power fantasy, just a different kind of power fantasy.

I fall into the other category. I like exploring character psychology and the tragedy of downfall. I like thinking about weakness and frailty and failure and self-delusion and tragedy. So I love Mad Men, and The Shield and The Wire, and all that sort of stuff. I enjoy the anti-heroes who are jerks...but only so long as the creators know that they are jerks. I don't want their jerkiness glorified. I don't want to feel pumped and empowered. I want to feel kicked in the stomach by the tragedy of it all. My main character can be sympathetic or not, but they need to be interesting. I think I'm a much less popular gamer type, but there are lots and lots of me watching cable TV and reading novels. So I imagine there is a market for people like me with VNs (at least I hope so, because I aspire to writing VNs that challenge the reader in the sorts of ways my favorite media do to me).

So...I think you have to know what you are going for and then commit to it.

-If you want an evil power fantasy, then you don't have to worry about sympathy as much as you have to worry about making the power fantasy player feel badass.
-If you want a morally grey hero but for people who still want the positive power fantasy, then you need make sure there are justifications for all the bad acts so the player can still feel like they are the good guy ("Yes I slaughtered all those defenseless Orc babies, but Orcs are Chaotic-Evil, so it was a good act to do it!")
-If you want the sort of main character as tragic and flawed that you get in some lit, pulp noir crime stuff, and a bunch of cable TV, then rather than sympathetic, I think you should be aiming for complicated and interesting. You don't have to like her, but you have to want to know what is going to happen to her...and maybe what you want to happen to her or him is that they get their comeuppance in the end.

There are lots of different sorts of immoral main characters...I'd say the fall into different genres...and so there is no one perfect recipe, but a process of questioning what is the audience you are going for? What is the effect you want to have? What theme do you want to explore? Do you want this to be emotionally hard on the player? or Emotionally reassuring?

Then craft the story, the power level, and the descriptions around that.

The main character who kidnapped someone and killed them, but the person was the man who killed her child will be more sympathetic to people who like more heroic stories than the main character who kidnapped someone and killed them just for fun.

And the main character who kidnapped someone just for fun and who is a powerful badass overlord is going to appeal to people who like evil power fantasies more than the main character who kidnapped someone because he was jealous and in the process the kidnapping is incompetent and the police are hot on his trail and he kills the person because he panicked and now it is all falling down around him.

So...find your genre and audience then go from there.

[Sslaxx]

I'm also not convinced that a main character has to be sympathetic.

I agree. I remember reading one fan fic where the main character was quite beyond the Moral Event Horizon. I liked the story, even if it was an uncomfortable read.

[trooper6]

I'm also not convinced that a main character has to be sympathetic.

I agree. I remember reading one fan fic where the main character was quite beyond the Moral Event Horizon. I liked the story, even if it was an uncomfortable read.

I agree, and I think that is a key. Some people want their art to entertain them and some want their art to challenge them, which often results in discomfort. If you are a person who appreciates being challenged that way, then main characters don't have to be sympathetic.

[Sslaxx]

I'm also not convinced that a main character has to be sympathetic.

I agree. I remember reading one fan fic where the main character was quite beyond the Moral Event Horizon. I liked the story, even if it was an uncomfortable read.

I agree, and I think that is a key. Some people want their art to entertain them and some want their art to challenge them, which often results in discomfort. If you are a person who appreciates being challenged that way, then main characters don't have to be sympathetic.

I count all art as entertainment. Regardless of whether or not it's challenging, uncomfortable etc. - if it engages you, it's entertaining you. I prefer to view entertainment as encompassing all things, rather than just the lighter end of the spectrum.

[trooper6]

I count all art as entertainment. Regardless of whether or not it's challenging, uncomfortable etc. - if it engages you, it's entertaining you. I prefer to view entertainment as encompassing all things, rather than just the lighter end of the spectrum.

I don't count all art as entertainment. Because I think there is certainly art that doesn't "entertain."
But I do count all entertainment as art.

[jellyfishsoda]

Personally, I can forgive pretty terrible characters if I know the reason they are like that and they have a lot of depth.

Morality is relevant. We need to know WHY they committed those acts. Example:

A man robs a store a gun point.

From that sentence alone, most people imagine this thuggish, lowlife who is violent and bad, and how could anyone like a main character like that? Let's try it again.

A man robs the store at gun point, his hands shaking around the gun, the cashier's terrified eyes reminding him of everyone waiting for him back at home. He was desperate. The warehouse had fired him on false charges and it's not like anyone else was going to hire a "fugitive".

That word made him sick. Sick that the system never once investigated the abuse allegations when he had begged the police for help. Sick that he's now charged with six counts of kidnapping simply for protecting the other orphans. And now he's sick at himself because he has to resort to this in order for them all to not starve to death.

So, I'd focus on the reason why your main character committed these crimes. It doesn't have to even be that serious as my example, but was she betrayed by someone? What happened to make her want to do it? It could even be her taking her frustration on society out on one particular person.

It doesn't really matter the reason, so long as your character feels passionate and justified about the fact that it needed to be done even if it's just to make themselves feel better.

[trooper6]

Oh I just wanted to add, that I don't think of entertainment as being on the lighter end of the spectrum either. I think entertaining art is some of the hardest art to make. Comedy is really, really hard to do well. And entertainment can be dark, dark, dark. Entertainment is some of my favorite art.

But I also do enjoy other sorts of art that...I just don't think most people would think of as entertaining. 12-tone music or various performance art, etc.

[Elmiwisa]

I kinda predicted someone would bring up Dexter (I also predicted Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and Mirai Nikki too)
So as a general response to a lot of comment regarding the motivation behind the act, I would say this: it is very easy to make the character who perform immoral act to be sympathetic by giving her an obvious good motivation, such as vengence for major wrong, dire situation, victim being much worse, protecting loved one, etc. Beside being an obvious easy way out, it also does not fit the VN I am writing even though I am totally aware of such possibility, that is why it is NOT among the possible rationale behind the act as listed in the first post. In fact, other obvious-but-not-fit-the-VN way to make the MC sympathetic are also not listed above either, such as giving the victim a proper burial, feeling remorseful, or being a contributing member of the society
I guess I should say a bit more. The VN is about the MC being very immoral for most of the story, commit a terrible act somewhere along the way (no later than the middle of the story), and may redeem and get spared in the climax (good end), or descend further and finally have to pay (bad end). Obviously, a sympathetic MC, if nothing else, would justify why it is called good or bad end. Also, I am pretty sure that while a lot of people can still like a story with unsympathetic MC, it will repulse a lot of people. Beside, a sympathetic MC also give the motivation for the player to get the good end (which is harder to get than bad end)
Because of the nature of this VN, I find it rather hard to put together the available ingredient (ie. stuff listed above) that produce a sympathetic character, which is why I wanted your opinion regarding at which point that it crossed the line. It is very easy for me to put together a typical immoral-but-sympathetic MC (usually by making her not actually immoral at all, or at least still debatable ) if I can just get stuff out of nowhere that do not fit at all

[trooper6]

I have a...questionable...main character for the game I'm working on as well. And there are good for him endings and bad for him endings. But, I'm not worried about making him sympathetic. I'm worried about making the situation he is in compelling. I'm worried about making the story good.

So maybe rather than focusing on making this character sympathetic, focus on making the character interesting and fascinating...make the situations compelling? A player doesn't have to like the character to want to finish the game, they have to want to find out how the story goes...so make the story really good.

Or go the other way and make your main character a full-on badass sociopath and gear the game towards a power fantasy for people who like playing villains.

[jellyfishsoda]

I guess I should say a bit more. The VN is about the MC being very immoral for most of the story, commit a terrible act somewhere along the way (no later than the middle of the story), and may redeem and get spared in the climax (good end), or descend further and finally have to pay (bad end). Obviously, a sympathetic MC, if nothing else, would justify why it is called good or bad end. Also, I am pretty sure that while a lot of people can still like a story with unsympathetic MC, it will repulse a lot of people. Beside, a sympathetic MC also give the motivation for the player to get the good end (which is harder to get than bad end)
Because of the nature of this VN, I find it rather hard to put together the available ingredient (ie. stuff listed above) that produce a sympathetic character, which is why I wanted your opinion regarding at which point that it crossed the line. It is very easy for me to put together a typical immoral-but-sympathetic MC (usually by making her not actually immoral at all, or at least still debatable ) if I can just get stuff out of nowhere that do not fit at all

No one is really just "immoral" just for the sake of being immoral, everyone has a motivation. It doesn't matter if the motivation is purely selfish. Even antagonists or villains of stories don't just laugh to themselves, "Oh, I'm just so EVIL!" and rub their hands together with delight. Unless the character has some serious psychotic issues, then their motivation is mentally driven (maybe they are obsessed with the idea of "badness").

A character might do terrible things and their motivation is the thrill they get from hurting others. They like the power because without it, they feel weak. Your character doesn't need to be sympathetic for people to enjoy it as long as they know the reason for their motivation.

Even if they steal candy from babies, their motivation could be that they hate babies because they are loud and need too much attention.

If you want to start a story out with an immoral character, the character should grow in some way whether bad or good. If you have the good ending, then there's plenty of ways to make their badness redeemable. If you have a bad ending, if it's done correctly, many people will enjoy seeing her get punished for her crimes.

Don't worry about sympathy, focus on your character most of foremost. If you worry about outside influences and what others are going to think about it, that will severely inhibit your character. It's once you get to really know your character that you can decide to present the story in whatever light you decide. Everyone has a different point of view so just look at it from different angles.

[arachni42]

I kinda predicted someone would bring up Dexter (I also predicted Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and Mirai Nikki too)

What about Saya no Uta? If you haven't played it, definitely do so -- it's only a few hours long. I think you would find it... inspirational. It is recently available in English.

In general, I think what you're aiming for is not really dependent on a specific combination of ingredients, but in the presentation. I agree with focusing on the character first. Give them some sort of internal logic, even though it will be twisted. I think making the character motivations clear will be very important. I know that motivation is sometimes used as a cheap trick to make a character seem more sympathetic, but it certainly is not limited to that! As jellyfishsoda said, motivation can be something like hating babies because they're so needy. It's a selfish reason, but it's also an "understandable" motivation, as in readers can imagine that point of view.

[trooper6]

In general, I think what you're aiming for is not really dependent on a specific combination of ingredients, but in the presentation.

I really agree with this.
Motivation is very important, but so too is presentation.

I have read works that made a person just eating breakfast seem gross and sinister just based on the words used to described him eating. Even though eating is a fairly neutral act, the audience is going to have different feelings and sympathies for:

1) "Jack looked at the dinner with wonder. Steamed vegetables he had never seen before from the Lands of the Moon! A delicate roast game hen in a cherry sauce--in the winter! He ate each bite slowly and carefully, savoring the mixture of tastes and smells, counting himself lucky to be able to share this meal with his friends."

and

2) "Jack looked and the banquet table full of the most expensive foods from across the known world. He grabbed a greasy piece of chicken swimming in a fatty sauce. Shoving it in his mouth, he chewed loudly, the juices dripping down his face. He enjoyed the decadence of the feast. Grabbing whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. He didn't even finish the chicken leg before he threw it on the floor, half-eaten, before he turned his insatiable hunger onto the next delicacy."

They both are eating dinner, but they don't come off the same way.

Even killing someone. When Sylvester Stallone does it in Rambo, audiences think of it as Badass and keep sympathy for the character. When a villain does the same thing, we think of him as unsympathetic and cruel. Sometimes it is motivation, but sometimes it is framing. If the *character* explains their reasonable motivation for kidnapping that person, but the *author* focuses on the suffering of the victim...then the character will not be as sympathetic as if the *character* gives no motivation, but the *author* downplays the suffering of the victim and uses a lot of positive and mitigating words for the character.

How the *author* frames the character is a really important part of if the audience will feel "sympathetic" towards a character.

Now with some people, this might backfire. For example, for me (and I know I'm in the minority), I can handle a work with a horrible protagonist, as long as the author understands that the protagonist is horrible. If the author thinks the horrible protagonist is really cool and uses a lot of sympathizing language that valorizes or minimizes the horribleness, then I start getting really irritating. To put this into concrete terms:

I can watch Mad Men because the show knows that Don Draper is a miserable alcoholic who is not a good person.
I can't watch Two and a Half Men because the show thinks that Charlie Sheen's horrific sexism and selfishness and overall terribleness is endearing and funny. That it is cool.

So...not so much the acts, but the motivation and the framing.