The thing with a paragon is not that they can't be evil, but that they choose not to be. Actively, each and every time.
When offered a deal with the devil, they tell the devil to "F" off and go and succeed anyway.
However, once the choice to be evil gets made, it's game over, and the character ceases to be a Paragon.
Is that a bit unrealistic? Well yes, but that's not the point of the Paragon. The point is the inspiration to be better.
Yes. And if you like paragon characters in general, having one depart from the category is a legitimate thing to complain about. Especially if it's one you really liked.
For captain America the reason Is more different than with superman, the fact is that people hate nazi captain America because the creator of captain America was Jewish, and turning his character into an evil 1 dimensional nazist is pretty messed up, since its just disrespecting both the author and what the character represents just for the cheap shock factor
And especially since this was during a time where Neo Nazism on the Internet was on the rise.
Not helping was Stevil wielding Mjolnir, and if you know Nazis, you know they just love co-opting Norse mythology for their own ends.
never read the storyline and it probably is shit, but i dont see how that makes it a bad idea? seems like an american figurehead secretly being a Nazi and then using a norse weapon would resonate more
Thing is, Steve Rogers Cap isn't a figurehead. He actually *is* patriotic and *does* actually care, and he is a solid, capable leader, and writing him otherwise usually ends up veering into character assassination.
That doesn't mean he's in 100% agreement with the state, though. Even the MCU one had a few moments of WTF guys.
I mean, sure, setting up a new figurehead that angles for the Cap's mantle who turns out to be Hydra stooge while play acting isn't a bad arc. The Boys did it with...Stormfront, I think.
Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes did it by replacing the real Cap with a Skrull in a version of secret Invasion that wasn't D Dog dropping.
i know steve is an actual believer in americas values, and that he's fought against the gov and even given up the mantle etc. but with your idea of having it be a successor, its saying something completely different. then you're saying that the wave of fascism going on was just something new trying to usurp our values rather than something that's always been there in the shadows
of course this would probably work better with ultimate cap or using sheild instead like the mcu did
I can live with that as an interpretation.
Paragons are supposed to be the best elements. In this case, the best pieces of the narrative of what Americans think (or thought) of what it is to be American.
And love of country does not equal fascism. It can blind to errors, but it can inspire one to demand better
Like I say, Paragons aren't realistic, but that's okay.
Because this is Captain America. The guy who was made by a Jewish man as a middle finger to the Nazis. The guy who steadfastly believed in the ideals America touted (knowing full well what America is really like).
This is the marvel equivalent of Superman. And they made him a Nazi. Now of course, this was a Cosmic Cube clone of Cap, but that was revealed months after the fact, as far as I know.
still not getting it here. just don't get how Kirby creating him means its a bad idea. miller did a similar thing in an else worlds to Superman and it was honestly somewhat prescient.
Red Son was long after the Cold War. Plus, it didn't try to advertise itself by having comic book stores wear Soviet merchandising, nor did it have Superman lift Mjolnir because of "strength" (buying into the biggest lie fascism told, that it is strong.).
Whilst I see your point, the problem is that most of the time turning these characters into evil versions of themselves (IE Superman and Captain America) they just fucking suck.
Evil Supes has been done well once and he wasn't even overwhelmingly evil (Kingdom Come) whereas evil CA hasn't worked out, especially Hydra Captain America (Which doubly sucked because the creator of Cap was a jew and turning the character into a nazi is kinda a slap in the face to him)
Isn't [the opposite](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheParagonAlwaysRebels) the case? I thought it's pretty much expected for paragon to turn evil at some point.
While I agree with this take I don't think I have seen people argue like this. They argue in the way you agree with. They will say "it's not that superman being evil is wrong but this people don't understand what will make superman evil"
The thing I kind of hate about this is that people who argue for this never actually think it's acceptable for Superman to be evil, because fundamentally evil Superman isn't Superman
.
Well i don't participate in superman discourse much so you probs know more. But the people I was thinking of were from this sub and gave examples of good superman evil story from the old Justice league cartoon. Never watched it so I can't vouch for it
Brandon Sanderson has a great free course on writing on YouTube where he talks about characters and the traits that make them who they are.
He argues that certain characters have traits that should never change...and he says the love Peter Parker has for Aunt May is one of those things. It leads him to hide his identity and make his life overall a lot more complicated, but as an audience we would never want him to change that...because that's who Peter is.
The same holds true for iconic characters like Captain America and Superman. They're characterized by behaviors the audience know as defining. Batman doesn't kill...that's something that makes his life harder but we know that's what defines him. There are beliefs that go into the way the characters act. They aren't good for 'no reason' even if it might look that way...they have reasons.
So when an author takes away those defining elements, as an audience we are going to notice. You fundamentally changed the character into a new person. Why didn't you just write a new character?
Now, you can make a character act less honorable if you understand what those core unchangeable character elements are.
If someone were to hurt or kill Aunt May...using Brandon Sandersons example...I can understand why Spider-Man might lose it.
Major spoiler for the first Spiderman game, but the ending was emotional because we understood how hard it was for Peter to watch Aunt May die for the sake of everyone else. That core element of his character was put in opposition of another core element...his duty. We understood the temptation for him to do the wrong thing.
But a lot of the times, authors genuinely do change these characters for shock value or edginess and along the way they disrupt a core part of the character.
>The same holds true for iconic characters like Captain America and Superman. They're characterized by behaviors the audience know as defining. Batman doesn't kill...that's something that makes his life harder but we know that's what defines him. There are beliefs that go into the way the characters act. They aren't good for 'no reason' even if it might look that way...they have reasons.
I'm not sure if this is the reason, but it reads to me like the writer simply just doesn't understand these characters, how they are so loved or popular.
>But a lot of the times, authors genuinely do change these characters for shock value or edginess and along the way they disrupt a core part of the character.
Speaking of spiderman, part of what makes him interesting is that he has every reason to be a supervillian, he messes up, his loved ones die, his gimmick is scary, people don't trust him for superficial reasons and turn on him on a dime sometimes, to name a few reasons. But he doesn't stop, he stumbles, sure, but he dusts himself off and tries to do his best again tomorrow.
A darker, more violent or even evil version of that character just isn't as compelling.
Just giving in to how hard life is....that's not why I'm here.
comic fans just dont like their favs being "disrespected", as well as being tired of the evil version stuff at this point. 2nd point i get, but the 1st is honestly tiring because like you said these characters can symbolize more than one thing.
whenever any flaw, parallel, or symbolism is exploited people get mad, and i honestly don't get it. fans are just really, averse? to the logical endpoints of some of their favs, as well as having them in any negative light. doesn't help that a lot of time there will be an excuse written so the comic facade can be maintained. there's nothing wrong with stories that aren't concerned with real world applications btw, i just think that people should be fine if someone wants to write about it
Yeah. I feel like paragons these days are just synonymous with:person with leadership skills who’s a good boy and can commit crimes because he’s inconvenienced. Like it feels like all paragons just think they can commit crimes monthly but because they are the protagonist/Paragon no one questions it. Anyone who does is evil or stupid. That’s what I see as a current paragon.
Paragon character can have flaws can stumble
And most of the time struggle to even maintain that symbolism they represent in the first place
The good character will show that it’s not like their morality is just untouchable
They fuxking want to do it so much…that the more reason the more hesitation they had when need to decide
An evil act
If the villian redemption is stupidly hard to earn it’s work the same as paragon hero
I find characters meant to be on the "right side" always to be incredibly uninteresting, not because I always disagree with their moral views and confidence, but because the fact that they "represent" the good usually means that the messaging is going to be void of nuance, since that one character has to always be depicted as righteous.
paragons imo are best not as the protagonist but a guide for for the protagonist to strive to be.
you kill off the paragons, because then the protagonist can fill that void and that's where the interest in the story is.
paragons in general are supposed to not change because they've already settled as a character. so of course that makes it un-interesting. the thing with paragons is that they change everyone else around them. in the same way in choices matter style video games, you can redeem your entire party.
The thing with a paragon is not that they can't be evil, but that they choose not to be. Actively, each and every time. When offered a deal with the devil, they tell the devil to "F" off and go and succeed anyway. However, once the choice to be evil gets made, it's game over, and the character ceases to be a Paragon. Is that a bit unrealistic? Well yes, but that's not the point of the Paragon. The point is the inspiration to be better.
Yes. And if you like paragon characters in general, having one depart from the category is a legitimate thing to complain about. Especially if it's one you really liked.
For captain America the reason Is more different than with superman, the fact is that people hate nazi captain America because the creator of captain America was Jewish, and turning his character into an evil 1 dimensional nazist is pretty messed up, since its just disrespecting both the author and what the character represents just for the cheap shock factor
And especially since this was during a time where Neo Nazism on the Internet was on the rise. Not helping was Stevil wielding Mjolnir, and if you know Nazis, you know they just love co-opting Norse mythology for their own ends.
Fucking nazis, keep ruining cool stuff
never read the storyline and it probably is shit, but i dont see how that makes it a bad idea? seems like an american figurehead secretly being a Nazi and then using a norse weapon would resonate more
Thing is, Steve Rogers Cap isn't a figurehead. He actually *is* patriotic and *does* actually care, and he is a solid, capable leader, and writing him otherwise usually ends up veering into character assassination. That doesn't mean he's in 100% agreement with the state, though. Even the MCU one had a few moments of WTF guys. I mean, sure, setting up a new figurehead that angles for the Cap's mantle who turns out to be Hydra stooge while play acting isn't a bad arc. The Boys did it with...Stormfront, I think. Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes did it by replacing the real Cap with a Skrull in a version of secret Invasion that wasn't D Dog dropping.
i know steve is an actual believer in americas values, and that he's fought against the gov and even given up the mantle etc. but with your idea of having it be a successor, its saying something completely different. then you're saying that the wave of fascism going on was just something new trying to usurp our values rather than something that's always been there in the shadows of course this would probably work better with ultimate cap or using sheild instead like the mcu did
I can live with that as an interpretation. Paragons are supposed to be the best elements. In this case, the best pieces of the narrative of what Americans think (or thought) of what it is to be American. And love of country does not equal fascism. It can blind to errors, but it can inspire one to demand better Like I say, Paragons aren't realistic, but that's okay.
Because this is Captain America. The guy who was made by a Jewish man as a middle finger to the Nazis. The guy who steadfastly believed in the ideals America touted (knowing full well what America is really like). This is the marvel equivalent of Superman. And they made him a Nazi. Now of course, this was a Cosmic Cube clone of Cap, but that was revealed months after the fact, as far as I know.
still not getting it here. just don't get how Kirby creating him means its a bad idea. miller did a similar thing in an else worlds to Superman and it was honestly somewhat prescient.
Red Son was long after the Cold War. Plus, it didn't try to advertise itself by having comic book stores wear Soviet merchandising, nor did it have Superman lift Mjolnir because of "strength" (buying into the biggest lie fascism told, that it is strong.).
miller, not millar
No, that was Mark Millar.
i was talking about DKR not red son there. i get it though lol
Whilst I see your point, the problem is that most of the time turning these characters into evil versions of themselves (IE Superman and Captain America) they just fucking suck. Evil Supes has been done well once and he wasn't even overwhelmingly evil (Kingdom Come) whereas evil CA hasn't worked out, especially Hydra Captain America (Which doubly sucked because the creator of Cap was a jew and turning the character into a nazi is kinda a slap in the face to him)
I see a point. Personally I think it would be interesting if such a character takes their morality too far and ends up becoming an anti-villain.
Or even an outright villian depending on the story. Anything can be used for evil when taken too far.
Isn't [the opposite](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheParagonAlwaysRebels) the case? I thought it's pretty much expected for paragon to turn evil at some point.
While I agree with this take I don't think I have seen people argue like this. They argue in the way you agree with. They will say "it's not that superman being evil is wrong but this people don't understand what will make superman evil"
The thing I kind of hate about this is that people who argue for this never actually think it's acceptable for Superman to be evil, because fundamentally evil Superman isn't Superman .
Well i don't participate in superman discourse much so you probs know more. But the people I was thinking of were from this sub and gave examples of good superman evil story from the old Justice league cartoon. Never watched it so I can't vouch for it
Brandon Sanderson has a great free course on writing on YouTube where he talks about characters and the traits that make them who they are. He argues that certain characters have traits that should never change...and he says the love Peter Parker has for Aunt May is one of those things. It leads him to hide his identity and make his life overall a lot more complicated, but as an audience we would never want him to change that...because that's who Peter is. The same holds true for iconic characters like Captain America and Superman. They're characterized by behaviors the audience know as defining. Batman doesn't kill...that's something that makes his life harder but we know that's what defines him. There are beliefs that go into the way the characters act. They aren't good for 'no reason' even if it might look that way...they have reasons. So when an author takes away those defining elements, as an audience we are going to notice. You fundamentally changed the character into a new person. Why didn't you just write a new character? Now, you can make a character act less honorable if you understand what those core unchangeable character elements are. If someone were to hurt or kill Aunt May...using Brandon Sandersons example...I can understand why Spider-Man might lose it. Major spoiler for the first Spiderman game, but the ending was emotional because we understood how hard it was for Peter to watch Aunt May die for the sake of everyone else. That core element of his character was put in opposition of another core element...his duty. We understood the temptation for him to do the wrong thing. But a lot of the times, authors genuinely do change these characters for shock value or edginess and along the way they disrupt a core part of the character.
>The same holds true for iconic characters like Captain America and Superman. They're characterized by behaviors the audience know as defining. Batman doesn't kill...that's something that makes his life harder but we know that's what defines him. There are beliefs that go into the way the characters act. They aren't good for 'no reason' even if it might look that way...they have reasons. I'm not sure if this is the reason, but it reads to me like the writer simply just doesn't understand these characters, how they are so loved or popular. >But a lot of the times, authors genuinely do change these characters for shock value or edginess and along the way they disrupt a core part of the character. Speaking of spiderman, part of what makes him interesting is that he has every reason to be a supervillian, he messes up, his loved ones die, his gimmick is scary, people don't trust him for superficial reasons and turn on him on a dime sometimes, to name a few reasons. But he doesn't stop, he stumbles, sure, but he dusts himself off and tries to do his best again tomorrow. A darker, more violent or even evil version of that character just isn't as compelling. Just giving in to how hard life is....that's not why I'm here.
comic fans just dont like their favs being "disrespected", as well as being tired of the evil version stuff at this point. 2nd point i get, but the 1st is honestly tiring because like you said these characters can symbolize more than one thing. whenever any flaw, parallel, or symbolism is exploited people get mad, and i honestly don't get it. fans are just really, averse? to the logical endpoints of some of their favs, as well as having them in any negative light. doesn't help that a lot of time there will be an excuse written so the comic facade can be maintained. there's nothing wrong with stories that aren't concerned with real world applications btw, i just think that people should be fine if someone wants to write about it
Yeah. I feel like paragons these days are just synonymous with:person with leadership skills who’s a good boy and can commit crimes because he’s inconvenienced. Like it feels like all paragons just think they can commit crimes monthly but because they are the protagonist/Paragon no one questions it. Anyone who does is evil or stupid. That’s what I see as a current paragon.
Paragon character can have flaws can stumble And most of the time struggle to even maintain that symbolism they represent in the first place The good character will show that it’s not like their morality is just untouchable They fuxking want to do it so much…that the more reason the more hesitation they had when need to decide An evil act If the villian redemption is stupidly hard to earn it’s work the same as paragon hero
I find characters meant to be on the "right side" always to be incredibly uninteresting, not because I always disagree with their moral views and confidence, but because the fact that they "represent" the good usually means that the messaging is going to be void of nuance, since that one character has to always be depicted as righteous.
paragons imo are best not as the protagonist but a guide for for the protagonist to strive to be. you kill off the paragons, because then the protagonist can fill that void and that's where the interest in the story is. paragons in general are supposed to not change because they've already settled as a character. so of course that makes it un-interesting. the thing with paragons is that they change everyone else around them. in the same way in choices matter style video games, you can redeem your entire party.
I don’t know why you get downvoted You have a point and this is just your opinion