I couldn't see another thread discussing this, so I thought I'd start a new topic about it.

Sometimes you hear about people who live immorally, especially in times past when certain things were frowned upon by the public more than they are now. Well, you hear about some of the great things these people have done, during the war specifically comes to mind, and I was thinking that to make people realistic it's very important. It would be rather biased just to make the good guys perfect, and the bad guys terrible. And even good guys may not be perfect, and may have wrong things in their lives.

Do you think you can portray a good guy, not a perfect good guy but someone who maybe lives in a way that some people might frown upon. Would you be worried that you'd then be condoning that way of life, or do you think it's possible, and okay, to write such a character and portray them as the good guy in your story.

I think that it definitely can be done and has been done before. From what I hear (although I haven't read the series) Artemis Fowl does this, and for an example from a Christian author, Randy Alcorn's Dominion does this as well. I think it definitely can be done, but depending on how grievous/wrong the sin is, it should be obvious that the author does not condone or approve of it, and I think generally it isn't too hard to do so, as long as the character ends up repenting and changing his lifestyle at the end of the book, depending on how serious the sin is. Having handled a similarish issue in my current WIP (although the character was not the main protagonist), I found that having the protagonist feeling small tinges of guilt or hints of an internal conflict worked well to hint toward the reader that the character wasn't completely evil or a total antagonist.

I say go for it. Perfect characters are boring, unrealistic and creates a huge disconnect between the readers ability to relate to them. How your character starts off as in the beginning of your story doesn't mean that's how they'll be at the end. Remember, everyone has a skeleton in their closet including our heros. Even King David fell to temptation.

Or, maybe, your character doesn't learn their lesson and reaps what they sow when sin catches up to them. Recent real word example off the top of my head would be the General Petraeus scandal. He could have ended his "inappropriate lifestyle" early on but instead it became his downfall. I'd say sometimes we need to watch our character hit rock bottom before they can be built back up. Sometimes that's a one book story arc and sometimes it is at the end of a trilogy. *shrugs*

I think it's fine, as long as you portray it in the right way. For example, a man who’s an alcoholic might save some children from a serial killer, and it is his saving the children that would be meant to inspire us, not his whole life. However, the ways his sinful addiction is hurting him and others should be shown. While showing redemption is ideal in fiction, if you are telling a true story where the man never learned better, just showing the damage of sin is enough.

You could also contrast the good guy who is living in and being hurt by a sin with a side character who is living righteously. Continuing the example of a man who’s an alcoholic, he could see his wife leave him and the terrible pain of his children, while a side character who overcomes alcoholism has a happy marriage and children at peace.

What Jonathan said.

When I would read the Bible as a child, sometimes I would notice when people did bad things but weren't outrightly punished for it and it always confused me a lot, as if it was alright in their situation or something. I think it's important to show the consequences in fiction because it seems to uphold what the author considers to be true. Sometimes it's hard to play with, because you might not want the characters to know of something that the readers need to know.

You could also broaden this topic a bit by remembering that it is part of a Christian's duty to see and speak the truth. For a Christian author that means you have to show a world where sin effects everyone, including the good guys. The problem that I think people are worried about is when authors only show one side of the coin. Showing such and such a character living a frivolous life, and never getting punished for it seems unfair, but it does happen (well, not really when to take eternity into account). There are big businessmen who break all sorts of rules and hurt all sorts of people, but they still get to live very comfortable lives. You can show such a character living such a life, and there would be nothing wrong with that so long as you remember and try to remind your audience that it is not the end of the story. Very often these kinds of people are not really happy, and they are constantly worried that something is going to happen to take away their comfortable lives.

Without God, this life is vain, and there are plenty of people who personify that vanity in many ways everyday in the real world. Fantasy is just a reflection or magnification of the real world. If you want to show life's vanity in a sinful character, then I say go for it. Just read Ecclesiastes. Everything is vanity under the sun. But what happens to someone when they are no longer "under the sun" (aka dead)? Also, how do Christians, or good guys in stories, keep their works from being vain (a striving after wind)? They must stop doing any sort of work for themselves. They have to start doing it for God, who is not under the sun.

Sorry, that might be sort of confusing. I hope you catch my point of portraying all of reality in showing that there is sin in everyone.

The problem I often wonder about is the smaller issues...ones that generally have a barely perceivable negative consequence, except in the long term.

For example, smoking. There is a man in one of my books who is a sort of a hero, though not too prominent through out the book. He's a soldier, and in that place, all the soldiers smoke. In the climax when the soldier is trying to decide what to do – he's smoking. Half of the other mentions of him – he's smoking. That's the way the soldiers are.

And the thing is, I know it's not a good thing to smoke. But from his perspective, there's nothing wrong with it. He doesn't even think about it. And there is no place or opportunity for a lesson on abstinence from smoking (the closest thing is when someone gets drugged and it is quite obvious that it is not a good thing).

Similarly, I am writing a speculative book based on earth, and none of the characters dress according to my modesty standards. Not even the Christian ones. That's an accurate portrayal, because a lot of Christians these days, not to mention the fairly degenerate future world I am portraying, don't go with my standard of modesty.

But should the focus be on the fairly numerous, and sometimes important, problems in the lifestyle of my characters? Or would that detract and clutter it, not to mention be very difficult and fairly inaccurate? Should I stick with the main themes and lessons instead – absolute truth and death, in the first case, and an exploration of Christianity and becoming a Christian, in the second? Should I at least try to not include issues that I don't plan on addressing, even if that would mean a potentially inaccurate story, with noone doing anything wrong except for in the small frame of issues that I am focusing on?

Even good guys shouldn't be perfect. Even if you're not planning to address major issues of sin, there should be flaws and problems your characters have to deal with just in the course of the story.

To reply to Rwebhu's post: I think whether or not you address those smaller issues depends on you, the particular story, and what exactly those issues are. For instance, I personally don't think smoking is a sin. A bad habit, yes, but not sin. So I honestly wouldn't be worried about having your soldier smoke.

Of course, I also happen to be someone who feels like the story comes first, and if it takes away from the story to focus on specific lifestyle problems, then you shouldn't focus on them. If dealing with them fits in with the story, deal with them. This probably matters more for the "little" issues, because if you have a character dealing with serious sin, it's almost certainly going to be part of the plot and the story.

I think that's pretty much what my view is at the moment. (Oh, on a side note...I think the same thing about smoking, but it was the handiest example, and it does apply in so much as I was not even portraying it as a bad habit, which it is.)

This is one of the great tensions of our vocation as writers. I think it's important to remember that (at least according to the traditional answers that were formulated when writing "poetry" or fiction was frowned upon ... e.g. Sidney's Apology for Poetry) something is worth writing---our writing has value to the extent that it conveys truth. A story (not set in the New Earth, and not starring Jesus ) with "perfect" characters is to that extent not conveying truth ... but a story that seems to give sin a pass is to that extent not conveying Truth. There are no easy answers, I'm afraid.