Protagonists vs Antagonists

Which do you prefer to play as? By protagonist and antagonist that also includes people following the main rivals in a story. Such as a hero's ward, under the command of his excellency. I normally prefer being an antagonist since in the typical story the antagonist can get away with a lot of things, so long as they are eventually defeated. But I find it interesting to be a protagonist since it tends to be more of a challenge. If you are leading the action or at least following it, there is more expected of you. So take our hero's ward for example. When he is not aiding the hero, he does not go and kill loads of innocents then returns to be considered to be a protagonist still unless the side of evil is the main focus of the story, which usually isn't the case. However, if you are an antagonist one moment you can be triumphantly leading your men into a castle then for whatever reason you strike down your general and walk off as if nothing happened. People often tend to be more expecting of things like that to happen so it wouldn't bother them as much. Antagonists also often tend to battle themselves at times which can also lead into more in depth of the story.

Any hoo, what do you prefer?

Poll needs to have a "both" option, as they can both be interesting to work with, although I usually stick with protagonists. Unless it's the crazy psycho with an unhealthy obsession over the protagonist...he's surprisingly fun to play. XD *shrug*

But it's not always clear who is what. there's things like Anti-heros and anti-villains, and turncoats, and spies...etc.

Wow I'm stupid, I should've thought of adding a both option v.v. I'm off my A-game.

Being the bad guy is always more fun, more freedom in what you do (sort of).

antagonists are fun. Not bound by conventions of morality and similar inconveniences...

Protagonists. Antagonists can be fun, but the fact that the heroes are bound by morals, that there are some things they can't do, no matter how easy or helpful it would be, makes things much more interesting to me.

The question is worded badly and implies a false dichotomy... One moment and I'll explain. :p

The protagonist of a story is, merely, the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical narrative, which ends up in conflict because of the antagonist. IE: You can have a villain as the protagonist, an anti-hero is the protagonist, or a plain old hero as the protagonist. A protagonist does not need to be a hero in the same way that a story does not need to center around a hero. The antagonist is merely the character whom challenges and enters into conflict with the protagonist, which thus sets the stage for a proper character-based plot to develop. (Notable, the antagonist can also simply be a concept or entity that is not a character in the traditional sense. IE: Man versus Nature, Man versus Self, etc.)

Ergo, if you play a villain in a story, you're the protagonist. If the heroes are trying to stop you, and the perspective is based around your character (the villain), then they are antagonists. The end. :p When you role play, or play a video game, you are almost always the protagonist. If you're a GM/DM/etc, you typically play the antagonists, some side characters, and if you have a GMPC, a protagonist.

Me, personally, I enjoy playing pretty well anything as a protagonist or an antagonist, though I'll admit for antagonists I've always been partial to obsessive megalomaniacs. :p

Apologies for hastily scribbling the question. I probably should've taken a moment or two to revise and properly list out my thoughts and question. My mind has been elsewhere for the time being. Anyways, back on subject. I was thinking more of how an outside audience would perceive the characters to be instead of the actual player. But reflecting on roleplay or any such activity that involves a protagonist and an antagonist from a cosmic and universal view, who in the story would most likely to be considered the protagonist. Likewise, who would most likely be considered to be the antagonist? Which role did you have, and did you prefer to have that role or are you more comfortable playing antithetical to such role? Hopefully that makes a bit more sense :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by They

Apologies for hastily scribbling the question. I probably should've taken a moment or two to revise and properly list out my thoughts and question. My mind has been elsewhere for the time being.

---

It's okay. I was more directing that explanation towards the people in the thread who are treating the protagonist as the hero, always. :o There's so much more that a protagonist can be than just a hero! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by They

Anyways, back on subject. I was thinking more of how an outside audience would perceive the characters to be instead of the actual player. But reflecting on roleplay or any such activity that involves a protagonist and an antagonist from a cosmic and universal view, who in the story would most likely to be considered the protagonist. Likewise, who would most likely be considered to be the antagonist? Which role did you have, and did you prefer to have that role or are you more comfortable playing antithetical to such role? Hopefully that makes a bit more sense :)

---

Whoever gets more attention, whoever the audience "follows" as the invisible third party is the protagonist... Typically. IE: If the story was centered around the machinations and schemes of Alfonso the Overlord with the heroes Daniel the Swordsman and Yuna the Cleric existing solely to oppose his plans and actions and come into conflict with him, they would be the antagonists. Simply put: Whomever the narrative follows is the protagonist. When you have more than one protagonist, there is typically a "main protagonist" that the audience is meant to relate to in some manner, with the other protagonists playing more or less importance based on their relationships to the main protagonist. (IE: Comedic side kick, friendly rival/best friend, romantic interest, mentor, etc.)

A perfect example of this is often found in Bioware or Bethesda titles.

In Mass Effect: You can go renegade and murder anyone who gets in your way, or be a paragon, a heroic person who stops at nothing to play fair and save as many innocent lives as they can, as well as spare most villains. Despite the polar shift in heroism versus villainy, the story is still centered around Commander Shepard (IE: You), because the narrative is built around Commander Shepard and his actions. This is also an example of a main protagonist as all the other protagonists such as Tali and Legion are more or less connected to the story based on how much you, as the main protagonist, interact with them.

In Skyrim: You (either a literal author port or a character created by you) can turn into a genocidal lunatic and murder entire towns (save children), adventure through caves, be cowardly and flee from everything, become a mage and cast lightning bolts out of your fingers, save a guard from getting an arrow to the knee from a nearby bandit, etc. This is probably the most perfect example of what a protagonist is and how it is merely a device without any particular defining trait beyond "the narrative follows this guy." No matter what you do, who you play as, what race or gender you are, who your companions are or who opposes you, the narrative follows you and your actions, and thus, you are the protagonist.

Now that I've got the technical definition out of the way, here is how it applies to role playing.

Every player is a protagonist, and optionally, main protagonist depending on how the story is set up and how the player plays their character. When you read a role play, either as an "audience", a GM, or a player, you are reading from the perspective of the character(s) or nation(s) that the player is controlling.

That's about it, really.

Generally speaking, the difference between a main protagonist and a general protagonist for players is based on how passive or active they are in the plot.

For Example: Bob is playing Daniel the Swordsman. He is the one driving the story forward through his actions, and thus, he is a main protagonist. Sarah is playing Yuna the Cleric and is there merely to support him, to heal him, to keep him in good health, and doesn't drive the story forward. Her main purpose to being there is to support Daniel, and her most memorable actions and behaviours are those of her relationship to Daniel and her own personal daddy issues that she needs to overcome. :p The GM is playing Alfonso the Overlord who is in this case the antagonist because he doesn't drive the plot forward. He is actually in opposition to Daniel the Swordsman, and attempting to stop him. If he succeeds, the plot ends.

Thus, a litmus test is...

Antagonist: If they succeed, the plot ends right then and there, generally in direct opposition to the protagonist.
Protagonist: Seeks to accomplish goal X, but doesn't drive the plot forward unlike the Main Protagonist. Typically supports others more often than acting independently, though like all tropes and literary devices, this can be subverted.
Main Protagonist: Seeks to accomplish goal X of the plot, be that slaying Alfonso the Overlord or acquiring a magical macguffin that can defeat Alfonso the Overlord, or rescuing a princess trapped in Alfonso the Overlord's castle, etc.

Hope that's clear and educational. :)

I knew the difference, but unlike some people I decided not to butt in :p

And just my stupid musings: If a novel focuses half on the hero and half on the villain, are they both simultaneously protagonists and antagonists, or does it switch between scenes? What about when they're both in the same scene? Or, somewhat more confusingly, what if they're always (Chained together or something, Iunno) in the same scene, clearly in opposition of one another and the narrative focuses on both equally, and their problems primarily arise from each other?
Though, I suppose in a world specifically tailored to hate them, narrative devices probably just pack up and go home.