Paragons

In my previous article, I talked about antiheroes and how they rose up to become popular. I also mentioned paragon heroes a few times. It occurred to me later that I might have somewhat implied that there are only paragons and antiheroes, which isn’t strictly true. However, I think the existence of antiheroes is a direct response to the unrealistic standards set by paragons in particular. I also feel like the perceived lack of moral complexity in paragon heroes has played a part in why antiheroes have become so popular.

With that being said, I want to take a look at what a paragon hero actually is and how to write them in a compelling way. Then we can examine whether or not there is still a place for paragons in modern storytelling.

The word paragon itself actually has nothing to do with heroes, villains, protagonists, antagonists or writing in general. It just means someone who is the peak and perfection of a specific quality. What we are actually talking about is defined by the word or words that follow. So, in terms of storytelling, a paragon hero is the perfect hero - the perfect representation of heroic ideals.

As we discussed in the previous article, a hero is one who is admired for their nobility, courage and the greatness of their deeds. A paragon hero then is the most admired, noble and courageous and they achieve great things. These characters can be found in just about every kind of story. They are characters like Aragorn, Superman, Elminster, Byleth and even Cindy Lou. Even George R.R. Martin, famous for gritty and morally ambiguous storytelling, included a paragon hero in A Song of Ice of Fire/Game of Thrones in the form of Jon Snow.

I’m probably going to get shot for saying this directly after mentioning Aragorn and Jon Snow, but because of needing to be basically perfect, paragons are typically not very complex or nuanced characters. This has earned the archetype a lot of criticism and, I believe, is a part of why antiheroes have become so much more popular. Comparatively, antiheroes allow us to tell stories with a lot more emotional and moral complexity. 

But does this lack of complexity make a paragon boring? I think a lot of people would say yes. I think a lot of people would rightly disagree too. Just look at the list of characters I just gave you. A paragon can absolutely be uninteresting, but I think that comes down to the choices of the writer rather than an inherent flaw of the archetype.

The main role of a paragon hero in a narrative is typically not to create moral drama. The role of the paragon is usually to serve as an example to other characters. They show us how to be the best versions of ourselves and this means they can trigger immense character growth in other characters. Aragorn helps unite a fractured world against Sauron and sets an example for Frodo. Superman inspires others with powers to take a stand and protect the weak as well as ordinary people to help themselves and each other. Cindy Lou teaches the Grinch, famously kind of a jerkass, how to be kind. It’s easy to focus on paragons having to be the most courageous, most noble and most accomplished, but admiration is also a core tenant of being a hero. Paragons are, above all else, admirable and this inspires others to become admirable as well. Not because they want to be admired but because they admire the things that make the paragon so heroic. A lot of stories and worlds would not exist in the form they do if they didn’t have paragon characters there allowing others to grow, develop and change for the better.

But, here’s the thing, you actually can have your cake and eat it too. Paragon heroes might typically not be a source of moral complexity or nuance in a story, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be.

You might think that being so admirable means that people just fall in line behind paragons, but paragonism can actually create conflict. Obviously with villains, but that’s a given with any hero. Where it gets interesting is that it can create interpersonal conflict among the heroes. 

I’m sure you’re familiar with the trolly problem. Do you kill one person to save three? Well this is an issue that is frequently adapted into stories because it is exactly the sort of thing that creates a dilemma for a paragon hero and puts them in direct conflict with their fellows. If put into a position where they have a guarantee of saving the many at the cost of the few or a chance to save everyone that also carries a risk of dooming everyone, the paragon will always choose the second option. Narratively, they will usually succeed because they are the greatest of heroes by definition. But, in-universe, this is a huge gamble to take and others are not going to be willing to take this gamble. Logically, it makes more sense to save as many as you can for sure over risking losing everyone in the hopes of getting the unlikely perfect outcome. This can easily cause tension and division in the ranks because the paragon must push for the gamble by their nature.

This isn’t the only way this can happen either. Maybe there is a method of sure victory over a great evil, but it isn’t the most ethical. A paragon hero will never support this even if it would ultimately save the most lives. Perhaps a villain has set up an obvious trap using an innocent as bait, a paragon absolutely must take the bait. Other heroes do not have this trapping and this can put them in opposition to the paragon and create character drama.

I think both the original version and the MCU adaptation of Civil War do this very well. In both versions, the actions of heroes inadvertently cause collateral damage that results in the deaths of innocents.  This creates the question of “should the Avengers have more oversight?” when the government steps in. Iron Man believes the answer to this question is yes because they need someone to hold them accountable and falls in line. Captain America refuses to do so. He believes that the heroes cannot be held hostage by government agendas that could prevent them from helping people. Eventually other heroes take sides and things end up spiralling into all out conflict. The movie adds an extra layer by including the Winter Soldier who is being framed for doing some bad stuff on account of his brainwashing. The government is ordering his capture or, probably, execution. Captain America recognizes that Bucky isn’t at fault and won’t stand for it. Iron Man and co. do what they are told. At no point in the movie does anyone on the opposing side consider Captain America a villain. In fact, it is pretty much universally recognised that his paragon nature is what is making him do what he is doing and creating this conflict. That’s why it’s not an Avengers movie. Either way, in both versions, the conflict stems from the uncompromising heroics of the paragon. Taken to an extreme, a paragon hero can even end up going so far they effectively become an antagonist or a full blown villain by falling into a mindset of “Only I am right. Only I can decide. Only I can keep everyone safe.”

But paragonism doesn’t just have the potential for creating interpersonal ideological conflicts like in the trolly problem example or Civil War. It can create inner problems as well. We tend to look at the paragon hero in terms of “that is just who they are.” Even in-universe, Iron Man’s entire side in Civil War has this view of Captain America. But being the paragon is a choice.

Superman doesn’t have to put out fires, stop suicides or fight crime. He chooses to. He recognises that the world needs a paragon and that he has the power to take on that responsibility. So he does. He is not the only hero that does this. But being the paragon is hard. Constantly putting yourself and your needs second, the weight of that enormous responsibility and the constant struggle to stay true to those paragon ideals in a world that is rife with evil can take its toll.

We don't see this too much with Superman of course. He’s superman. But we do see it with other paragons. Trigun’s Vash is an excellent example of this. He chooses to be a pacifist despite having a skillset that makes him a killing machine. He constantly chooses to take more difficult, non-lethal routes to solve violent problems - often at great cost to his physical wellbeing - because he believes it is wrong to take another person’s life. So when he’s put into a position where he could easily save hundreds, thousands or even millions by killing one guy - something well within his power to do - he agonises over it because he recognises that he doesn’t have the authority to make that call. One person should not be judge, jury and executioner. This is a fascinating ideological conflict and it is entirely in Vash’s own head. He’s hardly the only hero to struggle with this either. No guns and no killing is Batman’s whole creed.

Sometimes it isn’t even a matter of ideology. Sometimes it’s a matter of personal cost. Being the paragon hero takes a huge toll. It’s tiring. It hurts jobs and relationships. It causes physical and psychological trauma. Jon Snow tries to be a paragon in a world that is full of corruption, violence and deceit and by the end of Game of Thrones he is beaten down, broken and exhausted. In Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, we see the extreme effect being a hero takes on Peter Parker’s life out of costume. It is ruining his education, work and relationships and destroying him psychologically. This can become a question of “is it okay for the heroes to take a break?” It can also simply be a study of the physical and psychological cost of taking up the paragon mantle.

The only catch to this is that to stay a paragon hero, the hero has to choose to keep doing what they are doing anyway. It does not matter how much it hurts them, a paragon must always choose to act for the good of others. That is why, even without his powers, Peter Parker can’t help but run into a burning building to try to save people. That’s why even after losing his hand, seeing friends get hurt and die and having his sister threatened, Luke still refuses to kill Vader in Star Wars and takes a lightning bolt to the face instead. This is why Man of Steel and Batman v Superman fail. It’s one thing to tell a story about a paragon’s fall from grace or realisation they have to care for themselves too, but to remain a paragon, the hero can never compromise on their values. They must always choose to stay true to their belief system. That is what makes it so compelling to watch them grapple with their inner darkness like Luke Skywalker, the moral dilemmas created by their ideology like Vash or the cost of the role they have taken on like Peter Parker or Jon Snow.

So, is there still a place for paragon heroes in an age where antiheroes are the norm? Yes. Simply yes.

While it is very true that paragon heroes might typically be more shallow than their edgier counterparts, it is well within the realms of possibility to write a paragon with emotional complexity and nuance. Even when you don’t, just by being a paragon, a hero can create all of this in a story by virtue of how they interact with others. 

Do I think paragons are usually not as interesting as other characters? Yes. But, honestly, I think it’s a bit of a cop out to claim that a paragon can’t be as interesting or complicated as other characters or that stories built around them will always be less engaging. It’s perfectly fine to have a preference. I tend to gravitate more towards moral ambiguity and antiheroes myself. But over the years I’ve learned to appreciate what a paragon can bring to the table and I fully expect to see a resurgence of them in the future given the current oversaturation of gritty antiheroes in storytelling.

There is room for, and a need for, all kinds of heroes in our stories.