06-02-2021, 09:11 AM
While I've been thinking about the future of my characters I've come to ask myself a simple question: in today's age, is there such a thing as a "good guy" and a "bad guy" anymore? Does "heel" and "face" really apply in today's world?
Let's look at an example: Eddie Guerrero's WWE Title Run
How would you describe that version of Eddie Guerrero? He lied to people all the time, including referees. He'd do whatever it took to win, including hitting opponents with concealed weapons, or outright smashing them with foreign objects. He'd even trick people into getting disqualified or caught by the referee "red handed" with an object they didn't even use. This is the behavior of a heel. However, he did it all in a comedic way, and he focused all his antics against people that the crowd hated. Therefore, in spite of the fact that he was a terrible cheat, he was actually a babyface...
Let's look at another example: Triple H during the reign of terror
For the most part, Triple H was an honorable guy. I know there are exceptions when there was outside interference, but for the most part Triple H lived by a moral code. He'd beat people in the middle of the ring using underhanded tactics, but every match wouldn't devolve into outside interference spots galore in order for him to win. He also wouldn't run away from every fight. He didn't have ALL the characteristics of a typical heel, but he was most definitely a heel. The sledgehammer shots also didn't help with that. Contrast that to, say, Kenny Omega today, and Kenny constantly has Don and the Good Brothers interfering whenever he's slightly in trouble. I would argue he's more of a heel today than Triple H was in the reign of terror... in spite of the fact that we all like Kenny Omega and hated Triple H.
Now they're two examples I pulled out because everyone remembers them and knows them. They're not necessarily the BEST examples I could have chosen to demonstrate this point.
Therefore, I don't think saying "heel" really works anymore. And I've NEVER liked people who say they're "neutral", because to me neutral has always just meant "not over". If you're "neutral" then there's an argument to be made that that means nobody cares enough about you to consider you good or bad, and you'd struggle to get bookings if nobody gave a fuck about you.
What's the solution?
Well, it's funny you should ask: The Dungeons & Dragons alignments give a perfect answer to this problem. Now you don't need to be "face", you could be "Lawful Good". You don't need to be "heel", you could be "Chaotic Evil". You could also be "Neutral Evil" or "Lawful Evil" as well, giving a far wider range of possibilities for your character than just "heel".
For those of you unaware, let's run through the options double quick:
Good:
A common misconception of "Good" on the D&D scale is that good doesn't mean "ultimate babyface, loves the red, white and blue". Good, rather, means "pro-social". A good person is someone who'll actively strive toward altruism, benevolence etc. They are the people who'll help a stranger up on the street rather than just walk past them, or help someone in need because that person is in need.
Evil:
A common misconception of "Evil" on the D&D scale is that evil doesn't mean "Foreigner who hates America". Rather, bad means "anti-social". This does NOT mean walking past someone on the street who needs your help, however. It means actively working against that person on the street. It means someone who endorses torture. Someone who seeks vengeance above all else (rather than acting in self-defense). Someone who actively works against good people.
Neutral:
So then, what's neutral? Well, neutral is someone who'll trend toward good, but not go the extra mile. The fact is MOST babyfaces in the world of professional wrestling are neutral. They prefer the side of good, but they won't actively fight for good. Rather, they're more concerned with themselves and their own ambitions.
Then there's the other half of this equation...
Lawful:
Another misconception is that "Lawful" means "obeys the law". This is not true. Lawful means obeying a set of rules/laws that apply to that individual. If you're lawful then you have a moral code - that moral code doesn't necessarily have to mesh with society's moral code, however.
Chaotic:
This one is harder to define, because this does not mean "breaking the law". This means having no set of laws that you obey, which can also extend to actively working against someone else's set of laws. Chaotic characters would "lie", "cheat" and "steal" with a clear conscience because it's how they believe they should live their lives.
Neutral:
Here we have that goddamn neutral again. In this example, a neutral person would not care about either extreme condition. Someone who is out for themselves and neither has a moral compass nor is actively against having one. If the only power you believe in is your own, you could well be neutral.
When you combine these, you get nine possibilities of characters that I think are WAY more interesting than the stand "heel" and "face" roles. Let's work through some examples...
Lawful Good:
A Lawful Good character is someone who believes in a set of rules (whether self-imposed or imposed upon them by a higher power or society) and who goes out of their way to be a good person. This does not mean a boring individual who's always obeying the law. It could mean someone like Daniel Bryan, fighting for what's right inside the system. But it could also mean trying to tear down an evil system to replace it with a Lawful Good one. In professional wrestling, a Lawful Good person would be a babyface who comes to the aid of those in need, rather than pursuing their own agenda.
Neutral Good:
A Neutral Good position is actually far more complicated than it appears, and I would argue MOST people are Neutral Good. This could mean promoting your own agenda and working to find others who'll do the same thing, as long as that agenda is about helping others and being a good person. In professional wrestling, a Neutral Good person would be a babyface who puts in the work, but doesn't necessarily believe in the system they're working inside of. They're people who'll trend toward helping others whenever appropriate, but who won't necessarily rush to the aid of the owners plans.
Chaotic Good:
This is the one everyone thinks they want to be, but in actuality I disagree. They are people who'll fight for good no matter what the system around them is telling them. They are freedom fighters (who could easily be seen by others as terrorists). They are people who want the same for everyone, so much that they may support the ideals of communism. In professional wrestling, this is NOT Eddie Guerrero, because Eddie was not actively seeking good but rather actively seeking his own gains. This would be a person who fights against evil and fights for good, but does so in a way that could be considered bad. In professional wrestling this group could easily be heel as they could be babyface, because they don't believe in the laws that govern them and work against those laws.
Lawful Neutral:
This is possibly the most interesting group of people. These are people who believe in the law, but don't necessarily believe in being Good. They'll trend toward Good, but never actually be Good. An honest politician would be Lawful Neutral, in that they believe in the Law but they also believe that they are the way to go about achieving that. In theory, every Judge in the world should be Lawful Neutral, applying the law without considering the person who's in front of them. Is there an example of this type of person in professional wrestling? I suppose an authority figure who cares more about enforcing the rules than they do care about who they're enforcing them on.
True Neutral:
If you don't really care about the laws, but obey them because it's not worth breaking them, then you may be True Neutral. If you're willing to break the laws to get what you want, but still consider yourself a good person, you're probably also True Neutral. This applies to way too many people in professional wrestling. Those out for themselves and not caring how they go about getting what they want.
Chaotic Neutral:
These are people who embrace the Chaotic side, but also the Neutral side. They are good people who's actions don't always fit inside the law. They are people who value their own freedoms above anything that which society would tell them is the right thing to do. In professional wrestling, they are neither heel nor babyface. They are also more than likely the group that'll never "get over", because they don't particularly fight for Good or Evil, but rather just do their own thing outside of "The System".
Lawful Evil:
To be Lawful and Evil would mean seeking power for the sake of power. Seeking power to laud it over others. Seeking power but not caring what horrible things you've got to do to get it, nor caring about who you hurt along the way. In professional wrestling, someone who wants to win the World Heavyweight Championship and who'll willingly cripple others to get it is most likely Lawful Evil, because they believe in the system and want to reach the top of it no matter what.
Neutral Evil:
These are people who put their own concerns above anyone else. They are people who care more about making money than obeying the law, and definitely don't care about helping others (unless it somehow furthers their own agenda). They don't care about the system or the people in it, they care about themselves and what they want. In professional wrestling, Neutral Evil people would not care about winning the World Championship so much as they would care about making money or doing what they want to do. They would actively fight against Good people, but not care if that person is for or against "The System", and have no moral code to speak of.
Chaotic Evil:
Chaotic Evil people, at it's extremes, are serial killers. They are people who are evil for the fun of being evil. At lesser extremes, they might be nice to their friends but they'll screw over and/or kill people they don't like just for looking at them funny. They are the people who do whatever they want without caring who it affects, even if what they want to do is absolutely wrong. They are also people who'll tear down "The System" in the worst possible ways. In professional wrestling, "The Fiend" would either fit into this category or the previous one. In professional wrestling, these people don't care about championships or money. They care about evil for the sake of evil, and because it's fun.
Disagree with any of the above? Let me know.
I'm not saying we should use this system to define our alignments... but I do think it opens up fun possibilities. Where would you put YOUR character(s) on that list? Has it made you rethink what is heel and what is babyface in today's world? More than that, has it made you think about this in the way I currently am... in the sense that could Lawful Good and Lawful Evil people get along? Would a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person be friends or enemies?
Let's look at an example: Eddie Guerrero's WWE Title Run
How would you describe that version of Eddie Guerrero? He lied to people all the time, including referees. He'd do whatever it took to win, including hitting opponents with concealed weapons, or outright smashing them with foreign objects. He'd even trick people into getting disqualified or caught by the referee "red handed" with an object they didn't even use. This is the behavior of a heel. However, he did it all in a comedic way, and he focused all his antics against people that the crowd hated. Therefore, in spite of the fact that he was a terrible cheat, he was actually a babyface...
Let's look at another example: Triple H during the reign of terror
For the most part, Triple H was an honorable guy. I know there are exceptions when there was outside interference, but for the most part Triple H lived by a moral code. He'd beat people in the middle of the ring using underhanded tactics, but every match wouldn't devolve into outside interference spots galore in order for him to win. He also wouldn't run away from every fight. He didn't have ALL the characteristics of a typical heel, but he was most definitely a heel. The sledgehammer shots also didn't help with that. Contrast that to, say, Kenny Omega today, and Kenny constantly has Don and the Good Brothers interfering whenever he's slightly in trouble. I would argue he's more of a heel today than Triple H was in the reign of terror... in spite of the fact that we all like Kenny Omega and hated Triple H.
Now they're two examples I pulled out because everyone remembers them and knows them. They're not necessarily the BEST examples I could have chosen to demonstrate this point.
Therefore, I don't think saying "heel" really works anymore. And I've NEVER liked people who say they're "neutral", because to me neutral has always just meant "not over". If you're "neutral" then there's an argument to be made that that means nobody cares enough about you to consider you good or bad, and you'd struggle to get bookings if nobody gave a fuck about you.
What's the solution?
Well, it's funny you should ask: The Dungeons & Dragons alignments give a perfect answer to this problem. Now you don't need to be "face", you could be "Lawful Good". You don't need to be "heel", you could be "Chaotic Evil". You could also be "Neutral Evil" or "Lawful Evil" as well, giving a far wider range of possibilities for your character than just "heel".
For those of you unaware, let's run through the options double quick:
Good:
A common misconception of "Good" on the D&D scale is that good doesn't mean "ultimate babyface, loves the red, white and blue". Good, rather, means "pro-social". A good person is someone who'll actively strive toward altruism, benevolence etc. They are the people who'll help a stranger up on the street rather than just walk past them, or help someone in need because that person is in need.
Evil:
A common misconception of "Evil" on the D&D scale is that evil doesn't mean "Foreigner who hates America". Rather, bad means "anti-social". This does NOT mean walking past someone on the street who needs your help, however. It means actively working against that person on the street. It means someone who endorses torture. Someone who seeks vengeance above all else (rather than acting in self-defense). Someone who actively works against good people.
Neutral:
So then, what's neutral? Well, neutral is someone who'll trend toward good, but not go the extra mile. The fact is MOST babyfaces in the world of professional wrestling are neutral. They prefer the side of good, but they won't actively fight for good. Rather, they're more concerned with themselves and their own ambitions.
Then there's the other half of this equation...
Lawful:
Another misconception is that "Lawful" means "obeys the law". This is not true. Lawful means obeying a set of rules/laws that apply to that individual. If you're lawful then you have a moral code - that moral code doesn't necessarily have to mesh with society's moral code, however.
Chaotic:
This one is harder to define, because this does not mean "breaking the law". This means having no set of laws that you obey, which can also extend to actively working against someone else's set of laws. Chaotic characters would "lie", "cheat" and "steal" with a clear conscience because it's how they believe they should live their lives.
Neutral:
Here we have that goddamn neutral again. In this example, a neutral person would not care about either extreme condition. Someone who is out for themselves and neither has a moral compass nor is actively against having one. If the only power you believe in is your own, you could well be neutral.
When you combine these, you get nine possibilities of characters that I think are WAY more interesting than the stand "heel" and "face" roles. Let's work through some examples...
Lawful Good:
A Lawful Good character is someone who believes in a set of rules (whether self-imposed or imposed upon them by a higher power or society) and who goes out of their way to be a good person. This does not mean a boring individual who's always obeying the law. It could mean someone like Daniel Bryan, fighting for what's right inside the system. But it could also mean trying to tear down an evil system to replace it with a Lawful Good one. In professional wrestling, a Lawful Good person would be a babyface who comes to the aid of those in need, rather than pursuing their own agenda.
Neutral Good:
A Neutral Good position is actually far more complicated than it appears, and I would argue MOST people are Neutral Good. This could mean promoting your own agenda and working to find others who'll do the same thing, as long as that agenda is about helping others and being a good person. In professional wrestling, a Neutral Good person would be a babyface who puts in the work, but doesn't necessarily believe in the system they're working inside of. They're people who'll trend toward helping others whenever appropriate, but who won't necessarily rush to the aid of the owners plans.
Chaotic Good:
This is the one everyone thinks they want to be, but in actuality I disagree. They are people who'll fight for good no matter what the system around them is telling them. They are freedom fighters (who could easily be seen by others as terrorists). They are people who want the same for everyone, so much that they may support the ideals of communism. In professional wrestling, this is NOT Eddie Guerrero, because Eddie was not actively seeking good but rather actively seeking his own gains. This would be a person who fights against evil and fights for good, but does so in a way that could be considered bad. In professional wrestling this group could easily be heel as they could be babyface, because they don't believe in the laws that govern them and work against those laws.
Lawful Neutral:
This is possibly the most interesting group of people. These are people who believe in the law, but don't necessarily believe in being Good. They'll trend toward Good, but never actually be Good. An honest politician would be Lawful Neutral, in that they believe in the Law but they also believe that they are the way to go about achieving that. In theory, every Judge in the world should be Lawful Neutral, applying the law without considering the person who's in front of them. Is there an example of this type of person in professional wrestling? I suppose an authority figure who cares more about enforcing the rules than they do care about who they're enforcing them on.
True Neutral:
If you don't really care about the laws, but obey them because it's not worth breaking them, then you may be True Neutral. If you're willing to break the laws to get what you want, but still consider yourself a good person, you're probably also True Neutral. This applies to way too many people in professional wrestling. Those out for themselves and not caring how they go about getting what they want.
Chaotic Neutral:
These are people who embrace the Chaotic side, but also the Neutral side. They are good people who's actions don't always fit inside the law. They are people who value their own freedoms above anything that which society would tell them is the right thing to do. In professional wrestling, they are neither heel nor babyface. They are also more than likely the group that'll never "get over", because they don't particularly fight for Good or Evil, but rather just do their own thing outside of "The System".
Lawful Evil:
To be Lawful and Evil would mean seeking power for the sake of power. Seeking power to laud it over others. Seeking power but not caring what horrible things you've got to do to get it, nor caring about who you hurt along the way. In professional wrestling, someone who wants to win the World Heavyweight Championship and who'll willingly cripple others to get it is most likely Lawful Evil, because they believe in the system and want to reach the top of it no matter what.
Neutral Evil:
These are people who put their own concerns above anyone else. They are people who care more about making money than obeying the law, and definitely don't care about helping others (unless it somehow furthers their own agenda). They don't care about the system or the people in it, they care about themselves and what they want. In professional wrestling, Neutral Evil people would not care about winning the World Championship so much as they would care about making money or doing what they want to do. They would actively fight against Good people, but not care if that person is for or against "The System", and have no moral code to speak of.
Chaotic Evil:
Chaotic Evil people, at it's extremes, are serial killers. They are people who are evil for the fun of being evil. At lesser extremes, they might be nice to their friends but they'll screw over and/or kill people they don't like just for looking at them funny. They are the people who do whatever they want without caring who it affects, even if what they want to do is absolutely wrong. They are also people who'll tear down "The System" in the worst possible ways. In professional wrestling, "The Fiend" would either fit into this category or the previous one. In professional wrestling, these people don't care about championships or money. They care about evil for the sake of evil, and because it's fun.
Disagree with any of the above? Let me know.
I'm not saying we should use this system to define our alignments... but I do think it opens up fun possibilities. Where would you put YOUR character(s) on that list? Has it made you rethink what is heel and what is babyface in today's world? More than that, has it made you think about this in the way I currently am... in the sense that could Lawful Good and Lawful Evil people get along? Would a Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person be friends or enemies?
![[Image: syren2021.png]](http://www.sototallyawesome.com/syren2021.png)
![[Image: qyA5u6K.png]](https://i.imgur.com/qyA5u6K.png)
![[Image: scwforumbannerforadam.png]](https://www.supremecw.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/scwforumbannerforadam.png)
![[Image: ASrTaiG.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/ASrTaiG.jpeg)
![[Image: Bree2022.png]](http://www.hardygirl.net/graphics/Bree2022.png)
