(10-10-2013, 08:14 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:(10-10-2013, 07:19 PM)Faye Wrote: Wouldn't those also be generally considered "good" characters? I'm just confused what the "more often" could be comparing it to, since it seems to be a problem exclusive to characters that are supposedly good-aligned.
There are openly, blatantly good characters, there are openly, blatantly evil characters, and then there are characters who are neither of those. Â Either they're "nominally good" (i.e. the concept is not for an evil character, but neither are they especially good), or they run under the radar, rarely drawing attention to themselves (whether by accident or design).
In my experience, the tendency for characters to jump all over an evil character's actions, while ignoring their own behavior, tends to occur more on the part of those who are openly, blatantly good and make sure everyone knows it, than it does on the part of those who are openly, blatantly evil.
Now, this could be due to several factors.  Off the top of my head, openly, blatantly evil characters tend not to have a long shelf-life, as it were.  Additionally, there are many more loopholes for  evil characters than there are for good characters.  The ends can completely justify the means for an evil character - up to and including an evil character committing good acts in pursuit of an overall evil agenda.  That doesn't work so well for good-aligned characters.
I think we're talking about two different things. Maybe I'm interpreting this completely wrong, but it seems sort of... asinine not to expect good characters to butt into the business of evil characters? I don't really know why most "evil" characters would get onto someone's case about their actions to begin with, so of course "good" characters are more likely to do that.
![[Image: NCtCate.png]](http://i.imgur.com/NCtCate.png)
