#morally gray characters

[shyjusticewarrior]

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Morally Grey Characters

Morally grey characters - operate beyond the dichotomy of good versus evil.

These characters will usually make the choice to pursue their own ambitions over those of the greater good or evil.

Because their goals are removed from these qualities, they could be inherently good or bad, so long as they serve the character's ultimate purposes.

However, that’s not to say that morally grey characters don’t aim to make the world better (or worse) in some way.

They may have a larger goal that they’re striving to achieve.

Example: Immortality for all or taking down a corrupt government.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean morally grey characters won’t see others suffer, regardless of intent.

They are often described as being reserved and unfeeling—a dramatic outward expression for characters whose inner selves are anything but, yet appropriate to exemplify the secrets they keep locked away.

The beauty of morally grey characters is that they don't fit into a mold like many other character tropes, which makes them instantly feel more real.

Tips to Writing Morally Grey Characters

Your morally grey characters should still feel like a living, breathing person and not just a caricature of one. In order to realistically portray them, there are 4 important things to consider:

1. What is your morally grey character's life's mission?

This needs to become their guiding belief, their driving force.

These characters are very goal-oriented.

More than anything else, this is why they make the choices that they do, for better or worse.

2. How far are they willing to go to achieve their goals?

They are unique in that they are capable of making hard decisions that most of us might otherwise struggle with, and they often seem to do so with ease.

What matters is achieving their goals—not necessarily how they go about doing so.

3. They need to still have a system of core values to abide by.

Even morally grey characters have an internally consistent scale of, well, morality (albeit on their own terms).

Give your character a code to live by that even they wouldn’t break.

4. What is their role in your story?

Don’t create morally grey characters just for the sake of it.

Whether their storyline is part of the main plot, or whether they have subplots that influence the overall story, there needs to be a point to it all regardless.

Morally Grey Character or Villain?

What may differentiate a morally grey character from a true villain are the following 3 things.

Recognition: Your morally grey character should recognize that their choices can cause harm, intentionally or otherwise.

Remorse: Following that recognition, and often as a result of it, they must understand and experience remorse.

Redemption: Finally, when even they feel things have gone too far, your morally grey character must seek redemption however that manifests itself in your story.

Source ⚜ Writing Notes & References

[yanderejustforyou]

The Open Door

Word Count: ~1,200

Pairing: Ian Gallagher x Mickey Milkovich (M/M)

The door was open.

Ian stood in the dimly lit hallway of the Milkovich house, his heart pounding in his chest. The door to Mickey’s room was slightly ajar, a sliver of yellow light spilling out onto the scuffed floorboards. He wasn’t sure if it was an invitation or a trap. Knowing Mickey, it could be both.

Ian hesitated, his hand hovering over the doorknob. He could still turn around, walk away, and pretend he hadn’t come here. But he’d been pretending for too long—pretending he didn’t care, pretending he didn’t miss the way Mickey’s rough hands felt on his skin, pretending he didn’t crave the chaos that always seemed to follow them.

He pushed the door open.

Mickey was sitting on the edge of his bed, a cigarette dangling from his lips and a bottle of cheap vodka in his hand. He looked up when Ian entered, his blue eyes sharp and unreadable.

“Took you long enough,” Mickey said, his voice low and gravelly. “Thought you’d chickened out.”

Ian stepped inside, closing the door behind him. “I wasn’t sure if you wanted me here.”

Mickey snorted, taking a swig from the bottle. “Don’t bullshit me, Gallagher. You knew I’d be waiting.”

Ian didn’t respond. He couldn’t. There was something about Mickey that always left him speechless, something raw and unfiltered that drew him in like a moth to a flame. He hated it and loved it in equal measure.

Mickey stood, his movements slow and deliberate, and crossed the room to where Ian was standing. He was shorter than Ian, but his presence was overwhelming, a force of nature that Ian could never quite resist.

“Why’d you come back?” Mickey asked, his voice barely above a whisper.

Ian swallowed hard. “I don’t know.”

Mickey smirked, but there was no humor in it. “Yeah, you do.”

He reached out, his calloused fingers brushing against Ian’s cheek. The touch was surprisingly gentle, and it sent a shiver down Ian’s spine.

“You’re a fucking idiot, you know that?” Mickey said, his voice softening. “You keep running away, but you always come back.”

Ian’s breath hitched. “Maybe I can’t stay away.”

Mickey’s smirk faded, replaced by something darker, more intense. “Maybe you don’t want to.”

He closed the distance between them, his lips crashing against Ian’s in a kiss that was all teeth and desperation. Ian kissed him back just as fiercely, his hands tangling in Mickey’s hair as he pulled him closer.

It was messy and raw, just like everything else between them. There was no tenderness, no sweetness—just hunger and need and the kind of love that left bruises.

When they finally broke apart, both of them were breathing hard. Mickey rested his forehead against Ian’s, his eyes closed.

“You’re gonna ruin me,” Ian whispered, his voice trembling.

Mickey opened his eyes, his gaze piercing. “Too late for that, Gallagher.”

Ian knew he was right. Mickey had already ruined him, just as he’d ruined Mickey. They were two broken pieces of the same fucked-up puzzle, and no matter how hard they tried, they couldn’t fit anywhere else.

The door was open, but Ian wasn’t sure if it was an escape or a trap. Maybe it didn’t matter. Maybe the only thing that mattered was the way Mickey’s hands felt on his skin, the way his lips tasted like smoke and vodka, the way his touch made Ian feel alive in a way nothing else ever could.

“Stay,” Mickey said, his voice rough.

Ian nodded, his throat too tight to speak.

The door was open, but Ian wasn’t going anywhere.

[bl1ssfulelleon]

As much as I love Hwang In-ho, I can’t help but hate some parts of him.

He’s the Frontman, he could very well command the recruiters to find people who are in debt that aren’t pregnant women or old people.

“Fair” game he says, but don’t these people who are pregnant or old have a disadvantage?

Weaker than those who are young adults?

Every time In-ho interacted with Jun-hee, i couldn’t help but feel sick, it was cute of course, but knowing he is also the Frontman, made me feel uncomfortable. Your late wife was pregnant, wasn’t she? Would you allow your wife, who was due with the baby, to join and play this game?

But then, this is a game made for the entertainment of VIPs. It makes sense if he commanded the recruiters to invite these pregnant or old people to join this game for the likings of the VIPs, after all these VIPs fund this game.

Maybe, just maybe something inside him believes that the pregnant or old people could win? Another chance in life for these people? Or did he just let these people join to “end” their suffering outside the games? Or just to satisfy these sick old VIPs?

Ah, complex characters.. am I right?

[ketamachine]

The thing about Uriah is that all the characters are truly morally gray ( except for the cops they're just dicks) like it's not that they're sympathetic villains. It's not like they're just heroes who kicked a puppy once. Every character is a deeply complex, multilayered, hypocritical being. Anita abused her children, but she loved them. Kristen didn't protect her children from her husband, but she suffered his abuse as well. Thumbless killed and hurt many people, but he was a child, and he was just trying to survive. Camilla killed and hurt people, trying to make the world a better place. Liam killed trying to protect the only family he has on the godforsaken island. Vincent had a similar motive to Camilla, just more personal. They're all deeply messed up people, both victims and perpetrators, and their complexity makes them feel so much realer. These characters are so raw, you could put them in any situation and know exactly how they'd react because it feels like you know them. They feel human.

[fourteentrout]

acotar hot take

there seems to be this really intense polarization with anti-tamlin readers and pro-tamlin readers where most (but not all) antis will be like haha tampons the worst and deserved everything he got, fuck that guy, what a creep, and most pros (but not all) are like he did nothing wrong!!! there are so many double standards!!! look at all the hypocrisy!!!

and like i feel like not only is it more nuanced than that, but the narrative is more interesting because of that nuance. "Tamlin ONLY did wrong things" is untrue, but "Tamlin didn't do anything wrong!" is also untrue. He did a lot of things wrong, he put his mate in danger, he didn't foster any kind of proper communication with her, he was controlling and paranoid and just because he was traumatized doesn't mean his actions were justified. But he also did a lot of things that weren't necessarily bad that were later construed as bad following his shift in character, sometimes even by the characters in the books themselves, which...doesnt really make sense to me. Just because someone starts doing bad things, it doesn't negate the good things they've done in the past, or change their reasoning for their actions at the time. But just because someone may be misunderstood or taken at face value doesn't mean they were actually innocent the whole time, too.

To deny the parts of his character that are written to invoke sympathy in the reader is sort of closeminded, but to deny that he was abusive is an equally blind narrative to follow. That said, sympathizing with him doesn't make you an abuser by proxy. You know, its okay to feel more than just "this guy good" or "this guy bad" about a dimensional, multifaceted character. Like, thats kind of the whole point of morally gray characters.

Ive said it before, but Rhys always being toted as the exemplary morally gray character feels so weird when tamlin is an equally good example of a morally gray character, if not more, but is often completely shunted to the side as this irredeemable, heartless asshole.

i hope this doesnt hurt anyones feelings, but am i making any sense?

[rachel-sylvan-author]

"A Year Down Yonder" by Richard Peck

This and the one before it are hilarious! Highly recommend! The third book just had me sad, so I don't recommend the third. But this and the first one are fantastic! 😊

QOTD: Who is your favorite Gravity Falls character?✨ Answer: Grunkle Stan for me! 🤣

[ballinandcantgetup452]

Can we stop calling The Punisher a hero?

I'm sick and tired of the glorification of The Punisher. Frank Castle is a sick man whose happy place is being in a war and it doesn't really matter what or who he's warring against. He never started this crusade for revenge. If it was for revenge, then he would've gone home like 3 weeks in to Punishering it up.

Frank Castle is not a hero. He’s not some tough-as-nails, misunderstood anti-hero. He’s not some tough teeth gritting vigilante with a heart of gold. You're thinking of Wolverine. No, he’s a murderer. Plain and simple. That’s his whole thing. That’s what he does. That’s all he does. He doesn’t fight for justice, he doesn’t save people; he kills. And yet, people still put him on this twisted pedestal, like he’s the symbol of the moral gray and justification. And I’m so sick of it.

Yeah, sure, this is the Marvel Universe, where logic bends, where guys in tights throw buildings and teenagers can swing between skyscrapers like it’s no big deal. Ethics get fuzzy when you have gods and mutants and billionaire playboys. But what Frank does goes beyond all of that. Because Frank Castle is a bad man. A sick man. A man whose entire life is wrapped up in a never-ending war he never really wanted to end.

He lives in a van or warehouse full of guns and weapons, and he’s still out there, free, because he's too violent, too ruthless for anyone to deal with. Nobody stops him. Nobody can truly stop him. Not because he's some anti-hero with a tragic backstory. Once again, you're thinking of Wolverine. It's because he's a walking, talking, killing machine who’ll unload a clip in your face before you even think about it. People think he’s a badass. They think he’s cool. No. He’s a psychopath. A man who is only happy and defines himself by being in the middle of a war.

Don’t get me wrong; I like the character. I really do. But, I read his comics the way you might watch a true crime documentary about Jeffrey Dahmer. You’re not rooting for Dahmer. You’re horrified by him. But you’re fascinated. You’re trying to understand what makes a person tick when their clock is so broken. That’s The Punisher. There’s something raw, something almost cathartic about watching one man wage his own war against crime with no empathy, no mercy, just a hell of a lot of ultraviolence. And yeah, everyone gets in that mood every once in a while.

But here’s what gets me: people out there, actual people, glorify this. They paint his skull on their cars, their jackets, their walls. They act like he’s some kind of symbol of tough love or real justice. But Frank Castle would hate that. He’s said it himself — "Captain America would love to have you. I would not." He despises anyone who sees him as a role model because he knows what he is. He’s not confused. He’s not conflicted. He’s not trying to be a better person. One more time, you're thinking of Wolverine. Frank Castle is a monster.

And he knows it.

So let’s call it out. Call out the people who put Frank Castle on a pedestal like he’s something to aspire to. You wanna read a tough teeth gritting vigilante? Go read Frank Miller’s Batman or Daredevil. You want someone morally gray, someone who actually grapples with the weight of what they do? Check out Moon Knight. But if you want to peer into the mind of a deeply broken, deeply dangerous man, then yeah, read The Punisher. Just don’t fool yourself into thinking he’s anything other than what he is: a guy who likes to kill people, who lives to kill people, and who’s damn good at it.

Frank Castle is not a hero. And he never will be.

[fairfowl]

So like in the comic, Nimona is very violent and does horrible things, but we as the audience still have empathy for her even when we know her actions are wrong

We watch her spiral as the situation grows further and further out of control until even the character who cares the most about her is forced to try to stop her

And Nimona feels hurt and betrayed by this

And it makes me wonder

Was this part of Nimona's character arc a proto-Catra?

[spaceyraccoon]

Some thoughts on villainous characters and morally gray characters - including my own!

Not everyone is going to woobify your villainous/morally gray character. And that's okay! There is no need to always jump to your muse's defense or try to explain away all of their negative viewpoints and traits. Sometimes a negative trait is just that - a negative trait. And that's okay. It's part of what gives your character layers and makes them more interesting. By claiming your character has negative traits and then refusing to own up to them when they arise, it makes your character flat and shallow. It takes away any believability that they actually are a villain/morally gray and leaves us, the reader, with very little feeling that there ever was any risk in knowing them as a villain or a morally gray person. In other words - I believe it's cheating. It's putting a false label on something. It's putting a label of beans on a can of corn.

I've struggled with this myself before. I've had people hate on my characters for sometimes straight up unjustifiable reasons, and that's not fair. It isn't always fair. In those instances it's different. But when you have a bad guy character and their negative traits shine through and it impacts them negatively, you can't suddenly pretend that those negative traits never existed or that they aren't as deep as they seem. Your character can't be two things like that at once - it doesn't work that way, at least, not in a way that has been explained to me in a way that makes sense.

If you're going to have a character with depth, especially a villain character or a morally gray one, you have to own it all. You have to own the bad and the good, you have to own the bad with the good. You don't get to just have all the good and shrug off the bad whenever you want to. Otherwise, you don't have a morally gray character. You just have a puddle that wouldn't get my feet wet if I stepped in it.

[theartisttoyourmuse]

Victoria Schwab: here is a villian/morally gray character

Me: I'm marrying him

[midnightstargazer]

Regulus Black is probably my favorite Harry Potter character, but I don't understand why he's so often portrayed as being forced to join the Death Eaters.

Don't get me wrong, I totally get the desire to portray him sympathetically or give him a redemption arc. And I definitely think there's room for different interpretations as far as what he actually did as a Death Eater and why he betrayed Voldemort in the end. But there's really no ambiguity in whether he joined willingly or not. Every time he's brought up, including when the truth about his death is revealed, it's emphasized that he changed his mind, not that he was never loyal in the first place.

I know there's a popular headcanon that Sirius ran away to avoid being forced to join the Death Eaters, and I can see how that idea would naturally lead to Regulus being pressured to as well. But Sirius never actually mentions Voldemort or the Death Eaters when he explains why he ran away. He also tells Harry his parents were not Death Eaters, and while he indicates they were probably proud of Regulus for joining, he never suggests that they might have pressured him into it.

This is especially important because it's implied that Sirius had more nuanced feelings about Regulus than the rest of the family. (That's a topic for another day, but seriously, he put a hippogriff in his mother's bedroom and carelessly threw away dozens of family heirlooms, all while leaving his brother's room untouched). When he tells Harry about Regulus, Sirius shifts part of the blame for his poor life choices onto their parents, describing Regulus as a "stupid idiot" who was "soft enough to believe" their ideology. If he had any reason to believe they had forced Regulus to get the Dark Mark, and especially if that reason was that they had also tried to do the same to Sirius himself, why not say so?

The version told by Kreacher in Deathly Hallows reveals more about Regulus's decision to join: he expressed blood purist views, admired Voldemort, talked about him for years before joining, and was "so proud, so happy to serve." Again, nothing to indicate reluctance or coercion. He was certainly influenced by his family's ideology and most likely experienced peer pressure from his fellow Slytherins, but that's not the same as saying he was made to join against his will.

I wouldn't be surprised if, by the end of the first war, there were certain pure-blood families that expected their sons to become Death Eaters. Was there ever anybody who wasn't thrilled by that prospect, but went along with it because it wasn't easy to say no? Possibly. But I actually don't think Regulus is a good candidate for that. Aside from everything I mentioned above, he didn't go along with it. Just a year or so later, he was prepared to die to strike a blow against Voldemort. That's much easier to imagine coming from a true believer who for whatever reason had a change of heart than a reluctant Death Eater who only joined out of fear. And in my opinion, it's more interesting that way.

For what it's worth, I don't think he has to be forced into joining to be sympathetic or redeemable. Consider the following:

He was only sixteen when he took the Dark Mark, an age at which the human brain is not yet fully developed.

We're never told about any specific crimes he committed, and he was still a student at Hogwarts during most of his time as a Death Eater. He doesn't necessarily have to be guilty of extreme atrocities (although I tend to think he should be guilty of something beyond just going to meetings and having an ugly tattoo).

He was noted to be kind to his house-elf. Regardless of exactly what that looked like beyond not being cool with what Voldemort did to him, it creates an interesting contrast with the Malfoys and the way they treated Dobby. This suggests that Regulus didn't enjoy engaging in pointless cruelty just for the sake of being cruel. Which is admittedly a very low bar.

He did eventually turn against Voldemort, and none of the characters who provide accounts of this seem to fully understand why, making a wide range of headcanons plausible.

In an AU where he survives his trip to the cave, he would almost certainly end up going into hiding and/or changing sides, and therefore would be separated from the influence of his family and fellow Death Eaters, quite possibly surrounded by people who would challenge his views.

There are enough ambiguities and indications of nuance that (in my opinion) he can be portrayed as a morally gray character, set up for a redemption arc, or just humanized and portrayed with some degree of sympathy, without undermining the fact that he did make a really awful choice.

So what's the appeal of having him be a good person from the start? Like, I understand that morally gray characters are not everyone's cup of tea, but there are plenty of straightforwardly good characters in the series. What's the appeal of changing the narrative to make a Death Eater basically an innocent victim?

[the-haunted-office]

Sometimes introducing a morally gray character or a character with unclear motives be like:

Audience: omg they are pure evil! Kill them! Burn them! Dispose of their body in an alligator infested swamp and then shoot that swamp into the sun!!!

Either that or it's:

Audience: omg they are so babygirl, they are so hot, they never did any wrong, they only murdered for good reasons, they can be perfectly redeemed, especially if they're attractive, they never did any wrong, they are perfect in every way-

Unless they're a woman. Then they're fucked up no matter what and must die immediately.

Prove me wrong.

[arson-09]

this is a call for my mutuals please drop your favorite ACTUALLY morally gray characters!!

((Yes this is related to a piece on how rhysand is not really morally gray but i digress. smile.))

[haveacupofjohanny]

Complex Characters and Imperfect Choices: What Agatha All Along Taught Me About Writing Bianca

Inspired by Agatha in Agatha All Along, I explore how morally gray characters like Bianca in Under The Flamboyant Tree mirror our own imperfections and struggles. #MorallyGrayCharacters #ComplexWomen #CharacterDevelopment #HaveACupOfJohanny #UtFT

For this week’s Saturday Reads, I’m switching it up a bit. Instead of diving into a book, I want to discuss a show I’ve been watching that has sparked some deep thoughts on character development—particularly when it comes to morally gray and complex characters. That show is Agatha All Along, and Agatha’s character has completely captivated me. Agatha is the epitome of a morally gray character.…

[fourteentrout]

I honestly think that the ACOTAR series and it's characters are more complicated than fans give it credit for. Like a lot of fantasy readers in the modern age of booktok and all that shit always seem to crave a morally gray character, but when a character is actually morally gray they sort of...don't acknowledge it?

Because pretty much every single character in that series except for the obvious villains (Amarantha, king of hybern) are morally gray. Including Tamlin.

He's a really interesting case because he has these abusive behaviors, this consistent like Giving Up where he just heeds to his anger and his powers, but his entire driving force is that he doesn't want to be like his cruel, murderous father. Like, his essential action as a character is in direct conflict with his base characteristics, like isn't that so interesting??? But he's always just chalked up to the abusive anger issues ex who doesn't deserve any more chances because he already gave so many up. Like...do people know that even if a character is a Bad Guy, like a real bad guy, not your charming, suave, comedic villain bad guy, but like a guy who's fucked up and broken and mean and sad, can still be a compelling, multi-dimensional character?

And Rhysand. He's a super interesting character because though his intentions all come from the same place of like striving for peace and unity and other virtuous shit like that, he's still willing to overwrite his OWN MORALS if it means working towards getting what he wants--remember when he left a head in Tamlin's garden? I had totally forgotten about that because he never really exhibited any behavior that matched that, but if we think about it it was pointing to this facet of his character where, at least a the start of the series, he was willing to do a lot of fucked up shit for the greater good.

Which is like the definition of a morally gray character. But when comparing the two, often he's just taken as The Better One who can do no wrong and like rose above his role in society and would Never Ever treat Feyre like an object...which...he kind of did? Obviously not to the same level as Tamlin, or in the same way, but like for a lot of the beginning of ACoMaF he was pretty much Also using her as a piece in his personal war effort that he like didn't really fully inform her about for like...kind of a while.

Idk I know I'm rambling, sorry this is so long, but like I could make an entire other post about how FEYRE is ALSO super morally gray and like a lot of the point of her character is that she's like kinda fucked up and does fucked up things and has a lot of healing to do and makes mistakes even when she's still in the active process of like getting better, like the whole essence of her is that she's Not perfect, not that people don't get that, just that it's interesting that people will uphold these characters, her and Rhysand and the whole inner circle, and praise them and love them unconditionally, but when it comes to characters like Tamlin, they are deemed undeserving of a second chance because the bad shit they did was a) done to the main character(s) and b) magnified much more than the protagonists misgivings. Idk it's super early, I'm just rambling, I'm sorry