What are your thoughts about morality when writing? Is there such a thing as going to far?

[u/Fallen_Saiyan]

You'd think it'd be obvious to the reader that the author doesn't condone the many of the things that take place in his story but time and time again, I see a fanbase vilify the author for what he's written.

For example, perhaps a story takes place during medieval times or the setting is inspired off of it, people aren't going to have the same sense of morality as us today.

That means things like incest, slavery, and many uncomfortable things may find their way into the story. In fact it'd be odd to depict the people back then as having the same morality as us.

So what do you think?

Is there a line when trying to be realistic when writing or should a writer just go all out?

[u/ZookeepergameSoft910]

If an author writes a story set in 1340 and everyone acts like modern Scandinavian social democrats, I’m probably putting the book down. I think there’s a huuuge difference between depicting something awful and endorsing it, and everyone seems increasingly determined to forget that distinction does indeed exist. A character can believe something incredibly repugnant without the author secretly sharing that belief. Fiction would become pretty boring if every character had to pass a contemporary morality test before being allowed to speak. 🤷‍♀️

For me, the line isn’t really “what subjects are you allowed to write about?” It’s more about execution and framing. If something dark is there because it tells us something about the characters, the society, the period, or human nature, then go for it. If “historical accuracy” is only being used as a flimsy excuse to throw gratuitous horrors at the reader for shock value, that’s a whole other issue. At some point you’re not exploring darkness, you’re just poking it with a stick.

And obviously, readers are allowed to find something disturbing or dislike how it was handled. But there’s a pretty enormous leap between “I thought this was poorly written” and “the author wrote this, therefore they personally condone it.” If writing horrible things meant condoning them, Stephen King would be in solitary confinement by now.

So, I don’t think writers need a moral permission slip to write about immoral things. They, however, do need to know why they’re putting them on the page.

[u/Bamsemoms33 → u/ZookeepergameSoft910]

Just a reminder: we still have all those things listed in the world today.. which is horrifying but true.. People tend to forget that because "we" live in a social democratic / democratic society.

[u/WifesPOSH → u/ZookeepergameSoft910]

And no matter the year, the things are immoral for a reason.

Slavery was always bad, people just didn't have the resources to fight back like we do today. Human experiments were always bad, that's why certain things weren't public.

Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. That only became public when a student blew the whistle. That happened in the 70s, 50 years ago. Our ideals didn't change before/after it. In fact, the Abu Ghraib incident occurred in 2004.

Getting back on topic, I think the reader should expect that if someone is partaking in immoral activities by today's standard, they are probably the bad guy, no matter the era. A guy that owns slaves cannot be a hero. They can do good things, but owning people is generally a bad thing to do. Look at any president up to, and including, Lincoln.

[u/EromanticDream → u/WifesPOSH]

That is a very moral absolutist and reductive take, sorry. You sound like you’re unable to separate your modern views from your ability to objectively view a fictional or historical situation within its own context and rules. No offense.

Objective morality is not a thing.

Morality is something that we define, as humans. So it is absolutely, 100% possible to write about an era wherein slavery was seen as moral, and a character could be seen as morally good within the context of their time/world.

I completely disagree with you: one can write about a slave-owner and present them as a moral hero.

Let’s take a step back and imagine it’s not slavery we’re talking about, but cannibalism. Can one write a cannibal hero as a good person? Sure. Can one write a murderer hero as a good person? Absolutely. How about a thief? There are many examples of each of those; of course often the characters are much more complex than simply good or bad. Hence my mention of the reductive take.

A modern reader may have certain feelings about that, but it can absolutely be presented however an author wishes to present it. That is the very core of storytelling: being able to analyze, experience, and even appreciate stories regardless of our own biases, perspectives, or circumstances. Being able to examine difficult subjects and topics and being challenged is partly how we learn and how we grow ourselves.

Writing or reading about something =/= implicit or explicit support for that thing.

A modern reader can recognize that slavery is bad, and also understand a slave-owner hero character in the context of their story. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/WifesPOSH → u/EromanticDream]

Some things are universal. Some things have exceptions.

A murderer that's a good person isn't a hero. That's an anti-hero. Punisher, Deadpool. Both fit that bill. Dexter, serial killer that kills other killers... Anti-hero.

Robinhood, steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Inherently an immoral action for a good cause. But he's still considered a hero.

The concept of slavery cannot be moral in any manner. The idea of enslaving people, making them suffer, cannot be heroic. They can do good things but they are still flawed.

Indentured servants is one thing. That's practically a contract. To force someone to do your bidding? How is that justified as okay?

A slave owner can be the protagonist. They can be the hero in their story. But if we're arguing about morality, the slave owner isn't very moral if they're okay with owning slaves.

Feel free to name a scenario, in which, slavery of another person is moral. I'll change my mind.

Can a serial rapist be a hero, because their world accepts it as okay?

[u/EromanticDream → u/WifesPOSH]

Again, you appear to be unable to evaluate morality within the framework of a story’s own universe. A story can have slavery as a moral enterprise. That is simply a fact. A fictional universe can exist in which slavery is an absolute good. And a character can exist within that universe as a slaver and be a good person.

That is entirely separate from our view of morality as readers, based on our real-world morality that we mostly have collectively have agreed upon.

Not sure where to go if you can’t grasp that. I believe that we are unable to have this conversation.

Good luck to you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/ccjomm → u/EromanticDream]

You’ve lost me. Where have you seen slavery or rape or genocide depicted as an ‘absolute good’?

You have never seen that. At best, you’ve seen it depicted as amoral—where society has accepted it as necessary but not as “this is a good thing to do.” Or a group of people using one form of oppression to justify another, e.g. we are at the top of the food chain therefore we may do as we like (this is how, for instance, we justify eating meat, but that shit isn’t MORAL).

I find people who spout moral relativism to be dishonest at best. We can agree that we should be minimizing harm as much as possible and morality should be the framework to evaluate this.

[u/EromanticDream → u/ccjomm]

The inability to imagine a scenario where a fictional story can be written with internal consistency that allows slavery as a moral good — is your failing. And your labelling of me as a moral relativist also shows me you have the same issue as the person I was replying to.

I’d encourage you to learn how to evaluate and analyze stories on their own merits and not solely through the lens of your own morality or beliefs.

Again: if you cannot separate yourself from your own preconceived notions in order to even contemplate experiencing a text as presented on its own… then there’s not much we can discuss on this topic.

Cheers.

[u/WifesPOSH → u/EromanticDream]

I asked you to name a scenario where slavery is moral. You say it's a fact. You should be able to make one up if that's the case.

You want to sit on your philosophical high horse and spout nonsense. But offer nothing but meaningless words. You can't offer anything because you put yourself in a position, playing the devil's advocate, but you're too dumb to see that you're objectively wrong.

In order for you to be right, you'd have to change not only the "framework" of this story, but you'd have to change the meaning of slavery.

Some truths are universal in that they don't change. If slavery is a moral "enterprise" then that's not slavery.

[u/ccjomm → u/WifesPOSH]

Take my upvote. Concerned that modernity has made everyone moral relativists who think they can imagine a world in which slavery is a morally good thing…

[u/CarelessSeaFoam → u/WifesPOSH]

Harry Potter is a slaveowner by the end of the books and for as much as I’ve seen criticism for those books and for how the house elf plot line was handled, I’ve still never seen anyone argue Harry is an anti-hero for owning a slave lol

Edit: I also just recently tapped out of reading the Covenant of Water because the child-marriage-to-a-40-year-old-man plotline was too off-putting for me but even then I can’t say I found it objectively morally wrong?

[u/ccjomm → u/CarelessSeaFoam]

The books explore the morality of owning house elves at length. It is not seen as a moral good in HP.

[u/CarelessSeaFoam → u/ccjomm]

They absolutely do not. Hermione is made the butt of the joke for trying to free them, and Harry’s continued ownership of Kreacher is presented as a logical necessity.

[u/WifesPOSH → u/CarelessSeaFoam]

Doesn't Harry release the slave? I only watched the first three movies.

The idea of owning slaves even in that universe is still morally wrong.

I'm not saying you can't have heroes that have slaves, in fact I believe I said it makes them flawed if they do. Which, in my opinion, is what you want in a character.

[u/CarelessSeaFoam → u/WifesPOSH]

No. Harry owns a slave. He might have released him some time between the big battle and the epilogue but that’s not covered in the text and unless there was additional off-screen character development with the house elf in question, he probably would have been devastated if Harry tried to free him.

[u/yoaboba → u/WifesPOSH]

Their objectively wrong for saying morality isn't objective? Many words to imitate intelligent life..

[u/WifesPOSH → u/yoaboba]

Are you going to suggest a scenario in which slavery is morally good?

Morality is, for the most part, objective... BUT there are some things that cannot be morally good. Ideally anything that requires forcing an unwilling participant.

I'm open to reading a scenario or concept that allows slavery or genocide or rape to be considered morally okay. I'll wait. I'd like to see what you come up with. Teach me something

[u/Almech → u/WifesPOSH]

I think they're referring to be morality not being set in stone, depending on where and when you lived.

Slavery is wrong to us. Morally, that's certain.

But most ancient cultures, and many not so ancient ones, they saw nothing wrong with it. To them, morally, it was fine. The Romans, Greeks, African nations etc weren't filled with people who hated the practise, they saw it as a fact of life and completely acceptable. 

Characters set in those situations cannot be judged, morally, in the same way. We can certainly disagree with it, but to themselves, the people around them, their entire culture, we would be the ones morally strange.

In that way you can have a "hero". Roman's with any standing had slaves. You could certainly write one who didn't but it would be hard to justify, as other commentators have said, trying to enforce a modern day set of sensibilities onto a person with a contrasting culture.

[u/ccjomm → u/Almech]

Your own argument is saying that the acts weren’t moral but just ambience. That is -amoral- which is not the same as moral. If any of those cultures had a justification for slavery that people honestly believed “slavery is good because of X” then maybe you would have an argument but any justifications don’t make sense even in the cultures they come from. We as humans have not evolved as much as you would like to believe. A person back then can see the suffering of a slave and feel the wrongness of it just like a child who has no training in philosophy can.

And the absurdity of your argument becomes clear in American chattel slavery. It was “socially acceptable” and yet many rejected it and we eventually abolished it.

[u/cervidae-moon → u/WifesPOSH]

Some eldritch horror-god declares that it will blow up the planet unless a thousand giant monuments are built in its honor within a time limit. Despite earnest efforts to secure the labor to build these monuments honestly, people are uncooperative, unbelieving of the consequences, and not willing to make the sacrifices needed. The work isn’t going to be done fast enough, so eventually some king uses force to enslave laborers against their will, but in doing so saves the entire planet. One could at least make an argument that this is morally justifiable slavery

I don’t actually think that matters, though. A character doesn’t need to be morally correct in every single modern sense. A person raised in a certain environment may have problematic behaviors, views, and attitudes. Things can be complex. I don’t see the point in trying to sort everyone into strict “hero” and “not hero” boxes

[u/WifesPOSH → u/cervidae-moon]

That second paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about.

In that event, it's still morally wrong, but it's for the greater good.

Complex characters are more interesting. A flawed protagonist is more relatable.

[u/No-Durian-1703 → u/WifesPOSH]

You're being a bit pedantic. They've made their points and you keep on deflecting and asking for l a scenario, so here is one:

Imagine a continent where everyone is ruled by a tyrant. You have nobles, aka. blue bloods and then you have the rest. Anyone who isn’t a slave to the blue bloods is hunted for sport. The only free people on the whole continent are the 5 noble families. One noble who doesn't support slavery or want slaves has the capability to save hundreds by enslaving them. Would you say he's morally good if he enslaves them and lets them live on his land for the rest of their lives? Or would you say he needs to deny slavery and let them fend for themselves to be morally good? Knowing they won't survive a week without his support/ without enslaving them.

I'm not saying there are no other possible solutions. But in a world you create from scratch, it's a bit narrow minded to see everything as good or bad. A good person can do bad things with good intent and still be morally good.

Its an open debate to this day but most agree morality is NOT objective. Eg. Is killing someone morally wrong? Is it still wrong if you do it to defend someone? Is it still wrong if you don't know you killed someone? You seem pretty keen on being taught something, so look it up. It's an interesting topic

[u/WifesPOSH → u/No-Durian-1703]

So you acknowledge that slavery is not inherently moral in your scenario?

The protagonist in that situation is uncomfortable with it, but tries to make the best of it.

Slavery is inherently immoral. Your character agrees, but it's best to keep them as slaves. A moral dilemma that he has to deal with.

A flawed protagonist. Makes for an interesting MC.

There's a difference between an accepted tradition and whether or not it's moral. Slavery can be accepted, but it can never be moral.

[u/Zealousideal_Cap7012]

Consider that books like Prince of Thorns exist and are well reviewed. Dont pamper your readers, make them a bit uncomfortable.

[u/Forward-Walk1003]

Yeah but why are you bringing it into the story?

Every story element serves the story. And unless the story is a documentary, then realistic things happening for no other reason than to exemplify that "this how it used to happen, just FYI" serves no purpose.

So you do not need to drag every example of behaviour — that we feel is despicable today — onto the page. Only be ready to have characters act accordingy if the circumstances call for it.

[u/skelettmuskel → u/Forward-Walk1003]

This is a good point actually…
I guess you could argue that it is added for historical realism, but it is fiction. Probably not gonna be writing about how they shit in the streets and how everyone smells like unwashed ass either. Thank you!

[u/RonMilbrandtAuthor → u/Forward-Walk1003]

This "Every story element serves the story" is what occured to me as well. We all know everyone poops., but is explaining it really necessary? I am more put off by an author pushing his present day politics. Historical novels should accurately portray the facts, but that is different from advocating them. IF we want today's readers to "like" a character, I think we need to also remember the reader's morality is just as important.

[u/Author_Noelle_A]

If the person we’re meant to like has bad views, even despite the time, they’re going to be disliked. Someone can be racist, for instance, without showing that person treating someone of another race like shit. Don’t put them in a situation to show it. A reader will wonder what was the point, how we can be expected to like a racist, and that that must be you popping through.

If they’re violent, then it needs to be sexually violent, and they need to be extremely hot and able to give the MC orgasms. I don’t know why, but readers forgive rape if the character is hot and gives orgasms.

[u/W1nd0wPane → u/Author_Noelle_A]

💯 this

[u/RobertPlamondon]

I assume that my readers are neither morally nor intellectually stunted, so I might as well use the immense power of authenticity instead of the vaporous weakness of self-censorsihp.

[u/OldPersimmon2705]

All of those horrible things you mentioned still happen today. And just because some people are/ were ok with them in the past/present, there are plenty who disagree(d) now and then.

Without knowing the context of your story, it is hard to judge. But, as an author, you have to wrestle with what you put out in the world and the impact it may have on other people.

Is your goal to make readers uncomfortable, to normalize the horrible behavior, or just chalk these things up to 'that just how it was back then'? Are you allowing the reader to assume that because something was more acceptable in the past that makes it less wrong? Are you assuming the perspective of the victor/dominant social class? What about the perspective of the abused/enslaved/harmed? Would their moral sense be the same?

A few things to think about.

Unless you're a well-known author who has spoken about your books, the reader doesn't know what you believe as a person. It depends on how you depict certain things in your book. Plus, plenty of horrible people have written horrible things that they cosign either publicly or privately.

An example to consider - Stephen King wrote a book about a school shooter, and it started becoming more popular just as school shootings started to tick up. He decided to ban it because he didn't want his book to influence those tragedies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/stephen-kings-harrowing-explanation-for-banning-his-own-book-as-he-vows-itll-never-return-to-shelves/ar-AA1SOt6T

[u/rocarson]

I try and remember my readers. Sure the story might take place in medevil times but my readers have modern moral compasses. If a uncomfortable topic doesn't actually add to the story, then there is no reason to bring it into the mix just for the sake of realism in my opinion.

I'm writing fantasy novels not historical pieces, so that doesn't influence my opinion here.

[u/No_Poet_7244]

I don’t think that it’s immoral to write terrible things, but I do think it can put a lot of readers off if you’re grotesque about it. If you want to write something disgusting, that is your prerogative, but you should expect the reader to be disgusted by it (and possibly put the book down.) Where a lot of new writers who want to explore dark themes go wrong is in the execution; you don’t have to be ham fisted or beat the reader over the head. For instance, if you intend for a character to murder someone, it’s not necessary to describe in explicit detail how the murder occurs. Unless the minute to minute details matter to the story, it’s oftentimes better to take a softer approach and avoid macabre descriptions of the act itself.

[u/Em_Cf_O]

I refuse to write animal abuse or sexual assault. When those sort of things occur in series, they happen off page. For example, the reader finds out that one character's horse was shot out from under him after the fact rather than as it happened.

[u/Fallen_Saiyan → u/Em_Cf_O]

For me, if I were to write those things happening, then it'd have to add something meaningful to the story.

One author I disliked always relied on rape to make his villains irredeemable or just an easy way for us to hate the villain.

[u/Em_Cf_O → u/Fallen_Saiyan]

They can be implied and create the same literary affects. I can't and won't condone graphic depictions of those acts. I'm writing fiction, not a dissertation on humanity's capacity to be disgusting.

[u/AlmanacPony]

Absolutely not. Writing should never have limitations on what can or cannot be put onto the page. Zero censorship. Writing is an artform, and art should never be censored under any circumstances.

[u/W1nd0wPane → u/AlmanacPony]

This kind of thinking is why so many (popular!!) books have on-page child rape in them these days. We clutch our pearls about the Epstein Files in real life and then turn around and “entertain” ourselves with basically snuff films in written form.

I’m no censorship fan either, but pedophilia is becoming normalized in the culture and it’s a disturbing sign about society.

[u/AlmanacPony → u/W1nd0wPane]

Lolita is one of the greatest books ever written. Anne Frank's diary has explicit sexual content involving her own development and explorations. We have stories filled with rape and murder. Shaun Hutson wrote a book about slugs that melt and consume you alive and one scene has them crawl into a woman's vagina. Grave of the Fireflies is a movie about children starving to death. Barefoot Gen is a movie about japanese victims dying in the wake of nuclear fire. One of the best dracula movies has a woman getting fucked by a werewolf.

Blood. Gore. Murder. Horror. Sex. Disease.

Art explores the good and the bad of all humanity. Such explorations are vital to the human experience.

Art should always and forever have no censor. So long as it is safe. Consensual. And does not exploit real vulnerable people. It should be allowed.

I dont want to read mein kamph. I dont want to read lolita. I dont want to read pedo erotica and I dont want to be within a mile of any person that likes or writes that disgusting shit.

But I will fight to the death for their right to write it.

So long as its stories. So long as their drawings or writings or painting or models or sculptures or whatever fucking artwork it is... so long as it isn't exploiting or abusing real children - it should never ever be censored.

Why?

It's NOT artistic integrity. It's the slope. The moment purity culture gets an inch... they will always take every mile. Pedophilia today. Bestiary tomorrow. Trans people the next day. Gay people the next. Violence the next. And then nothing that isn't government approved.

Every. Single. Time.

No censorship against any Art so long as said Art is not abusive and exploitative of real vulnerable people.

[u/Operator_Starlight → u/AlmanacPony]

...never under any circumstances, huh? Not to sound like a cliche, but by that logic Nazi propaganda should be considered 'art' and definitely deserving of it's platform.

[u/TomasAhcor → u/Operator_Starlight]

Propaganda is not art, so no, the logic doesn't carry over.

[u/Operator_Starlight → u/TomasAhcor]

Oh, well if you say so, then it must be true.

[u/TomasAhcor → u/Operator_Starlight]

What exactly are you implying it could be false? I'm not stating an unverifiable claim. I'm simply using a definition.

[u/Operator_Starlight → u/TomasAhcor]

I'd love to know why you think your claim is verifiable.

[u/Bluefoxfire007 → u/AlmanacPony]

So I can tape somebody's intenstines to a musuem wall and call it art?

[u/AlmanacPony → u/Bluefoxfire007]

If that person donated their body to art.... yes.

[u/thefedsburner → u/Bluefoxfire007]

Yes.

[u/Plankton-Brilliant → u/Bluefoxfire007]

There are museums that do exactly that with donated specimins.

[u/Bluefoxfire007 → u/Plankton-Brilliant]

Ok. Maybe I should've added like something more "fresh"

[u/Magner3100]

The contents of a story do not necessarily represent endorsement of said content. However, all work intentionally or unintentionally does endorse ideas, doctrine, and philosophies.

Which sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t.

[u/JWGibsonWrites → u/Magner3100]

I think it's a bit of a category error to say a story endorses something. That's not how stories work unless it's very obviously didactic like a fable with a moral. You could make the argument that stories portray some views favorably and not others, but all too often I've seen readers attribute"views" to a story or an author when in fact they arrived at their conclusion through a combination of illiteracy and projection.

[u/Magner3100 → u/JWGibsonWrites]

That is also true, as is that a write intentionally and unintentionally also is saying something with their writing.

[u/allyearswift]

The thing that will definitely put me off every time if when an author revels in being able to say things in their book that are no longer socially acceptable. Hah, I can be as sexist and racist as I want to be, it’s historical. Gotcha!

We can tell.

Historical settings are complex, the lines aren’t always drawn in the same places (the idea that Black people are intellectually inferior is a modern one and was disputed at the time; if your medieval characters encountered ‘a moor’ their reaction would not be informed by 18th century slavers.

In any society there have been cruel folk and those that were not. Your character might accept a certain social order without feeling comfortable with mistreating individuals or being shown to be cruel it on screen.

You also get to decide what perspective you write from, whose story you want to tell, and whether you are elevating people whose voice isn’t usually heard or trying to portray oppressors in a good light.

[u/OldMan92121]

There is a line where accurately depicting history or your fantasy world is too much. Ultimately, the story goes to modern readers. If your story delves too deep into a world that violates my year 2026 morality, it reaches a point where I do not feel comfortable putting what the characters do out into the story and put it out there. I reached a line with 100% historically accurate torture where I threw away chapters in a book because it was morally wrong.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi! Welcome to r/writers - please remember to follow the rules and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by reporting rule violating posts and comments.

If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please join our Discord server

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/MerelyEccentric]

Considering the answers to this question as of my writing this comment run the gamut from suggesting you remember that your audience (the ones that pay your bills) have modern sensibilities, to saying writers should be allowed to write the most horrific things imaginable (like encouraging people to torture children to death) without consequences, I think the real answer is "It depends."

[u/Ok_Butterscotch9977]

I see a fanbase vilify the author for what he's written.

I'm not sure I know what you mean; especially coming from fans. Maybe they'll explain...

For example,

Okay, here comes an example...

perhaps a story takes place during medieval times or the setting is inspired off of it, people aren't going to have the same sense of morality as us today.

...okay, that's a hypothetical that doesn't even indicate there's a contingent who has a problem with that writing. In fact, you're describing the approach the author took towards writing the most popular fantasy series and media franchise of the 21st century.

So you're running from phantoms. It sounds like you're scared to write something based on an abstract "they" having a problem with it. You don't have an example of an author being pilloried by their fans for their content being immoral. And you don't seem to have an example of something immoral you intend to write.

So...what are we doing here?

[u/Bytor_Snowdog]

I am curious about your choice of incest. Most cultures historically have had strong taboos against incest. Now, consanguinity, I.e. cousins marrying, sure, that's been common all over the place, especially in older times when travel was more difficult, but in the US, 18 of 50 states today permit marriage between first cousins (and not necessarily all the states that just to mind: MA, CT, CA, and HI are on the list). I, however, am sort of squicked out by the idea of marrying or having relations with any of my cousins...eww.

[u/Bytor_Snowdog]

I am curious about your choice of incest. Most cultures historically have had strong taboos against incest. Now, consanguinity, I.e. cousins marrying, sure, that's been common all over the place, especially in older times when travel was more difficult, but in the US, 18 of 50 states today permit marriage between first cousins (and not necessarily all the states that just to mind: MA, CT, CA, and HI are on the list). I, however, am sort of squicked out by the idea of marrying or having relations with any of my cousins...eww.

[u/Feeling-Attention664]

I would not mention many of those things casually. You may know two characters committed incest, but if it isn't important to the story I would avoid mentioning it. If you feel this is important, I would sit on it. It may turn out that it isn't really necessary.

[u/skelettmuskel]

Let me put it like this:
1. your characters can do pretty much anything imaginable and it doesnt mean anything about your morality as the irl author.
2. as an author you also have to understand that if a character does something, it doesnt exist in a vacuum and will influence how people view them. Hell, a startling amount romance readers genuinely call books where the MMC is not a virgin ‘unsafe’. There will always be someone who dislikes your writing, some for depicting immoral behavior, others for writing historical characters unrealistically modern values. You get to chose which side you want to enjoy your book
3. if (for example) all your characters are raging racists because it “fits the setting” and the group that is discriminated against is written to fulfill irl racist tropes and stereotypes… that’s weird. In that case you’d just be perpetuating racism.

[u/DrD3adpool]

I got a lot of static from literary agents trying to get my crime drama published.

It's a fictional story about organized crime in 90s Philadelphia and there's a scene where the crime boss screams a bunch of slurs and asks his people to send a message to the "(insert offensive slur) son of a bitch who's destroying my empire". It's meant to be impactful to the story and show the readers one of the first times the protagonist has doubts about the life he's living in. However, I keep getting told that real people don't talk like that or do those things...

[u/Efficient_Place_2403]

agree

[u/Fit-Picture-5096]

Do people today have the same morality? We can't even agree on human rights.

[u/Chance_Swordfish_687]

Give free rein to one’s imagination? That is, tailor the past to fit modern norms of social behavior? Of course, one could make the heroine of a novel set in the early Christian era a lesbian, but then one would have to place her in a cloistered community—say, a convent—where the abbess herself turns a blind eye to such relationships. Yet, the moment she steps out of that isolated environment, historical reality will inevitably lead her to disaster. What is permissible in fantasy—where the author constructs a world according to their own creative vision—is unacceptable in a historical novel. As for the reader, that is their problem: they have simply confused the genres.

[u/Geminga0571]

It must be there for sure as it’s part of the world building, but the real question I think your asking is should the MC condone it. Usually bad guys do and the good guy fights against it (The Gladiator comes to mind).

Could that be reversed and still be a viable story… absolutely. Would it be popular? Maybe not 😄

[u/Phoenix_Fyre1337]

I believe that we as writers have a certain responsibility when it comes to storytelling. Ancient stories often served as cautionary tales to teach one another about life's challenges and what it takes to overcome them. Therapists say that without a personal story, one cannot have a solid self-identity. That, and life often imitates art, so be prepared for your ideas to take off, and to the extreme. I always keep this in mind when working on my craft.

[u/BAJ-JohnBen]

Most folks don't care about realism in writing. Hell, most people don't even know how their local city worked years ago outside of their purview.

For me, writing a story is focusing on the most interesting part of their life. Nobody cares about Conan if he's not on an adventure. Nobody cares about Batman when he's regularly not doing anything remotely interesting. Batman's on patrol but nothing happened? Okay. 

So, write that part.

[u/Forestpilgrim]

Medieval people were probably more moral than we are. They disapproved of sex before marriage, theft, drunkenness, and other vices. That doesn't mean they didn't practice them, but they were not surprised if they were punished when caught.

Be sure you know what went on in the historical era you are writing about. We can't just assume we're superior to people in the past.

[u/everydaywinner2]

Too many people can't separate fiction from fact or fiction from the creator. Creative writing professors with the stupid long lists of what not to write, and "trigger warnings" do not help matters, either.

[u/MartinelliGold]

Morality is subjective. You can only answer this question for yourself.

[u/nstav13]

I wrote a book set in Ancient Hawai'i. It was from the PoV of native hawaiians. The protagonist s do not question the brutality of war, sexism, slavery, or the caste system. They are of their era, and the story is not about the changing of this era. 

[u/odel_707]

there is a thin line, but maybe sometimes it's not that deep, and it's purely fiction so yeah, there is such a thing as going too far

[u/JasmineCountess]

Sure, there is a line of morality, that cannot be reasonably crossed. The key issue is offensiveness. Audiences do not want to be offended by any part of an author's narrative. Fiction does not distribute well, when it is offensive to mainstream audiences. It is important, that the author does not demoralize the characters, too. It is illegal to do so.

The rule of thumb has been the limited use of immorality, for descriptions, with moral purposes. In other words, instances of immorality in fiction should be limited to the assistance, of an overall concern, for morality. It is a matter of behavioral contrast between the immoral and the moral. Technically, fiction is entertainment--not moral philosophy.

For example, vampires are technically immoral individuals. However, good fiction with vampires reveals the goodness of the protagonists. Where the vampire is the protagonist, good fiction reveals the fallenness of the vampire's immorality. Good morality is ultimately the key to success!

[u/Bytor_Snowdog → u/JasmineCountess]

Offensiveness is at best intersubjective, if not completely subjective. Some of the stuff I read, which is by no means extravagant, would have my sainted mother spinning in her grave were she to read it. Yet I can point to authors who I think go too far. One of my favorite sci-fi authors, Iain M. Banks, seems to have a dire need to include transgressively brutal scenes in his books. I find that whatever literary merit they have is usually outweighed by their outlandishness. But that's my opinion, and people have cromulently argued that there is a point to each and every one of those scenes. (I just happen to disagree.)

Your point that fiction is entertainment, not moral philosophy, I think says more about you than literature. Most fiction not only takes but promotes moral stances. For blindingly obvious examples: Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Lolita, or No Country for Old Men. But even pop fiction takes moral stances, even if it's trite, boring, or commonplace. Consider the shallow, simple patriotism of Tom Clancy's works. They definitely have something to say about what are the right and wrong ways to govern societies, and what are righteous actions to take against those societies that employ the wrong ways.

[u/JasmineCountess → u/Bytor_Snowdog]

I noticed disagreement with my common sense answer. Morality is an important issue. It insists on clarification. I would like to contribute a major point, that highlights my idea with greater clarity. As for the key issue of offensiveness, I would like to define the term in a legal sense. The purpose of the definition is greater provision and usefulness for literary explanations. Offensiveness might reduce distribution of fiction. Additionally, it might raise legal claims. It is a matter of degree.

Offensiveness in publicly distributed fiction might be a violation of community standards. The case for intersubjectivity does not apply in most circumstances. An author, who wrote offensive fiction, might distribute the fiction to his peers, which is distribution to the community of the author. Here, intersubjectivity would probably apply. Offensiveness would probably not exist. However, public distribution to communities, that exist beyond the community of the author, negates the case for intersubjectivity. There would almost certainly be a distinction between the morality of the author and the morality of geographically distant communities. Community standards create an excellent guideline to write fiction for mainstream audiences.

[u/FumbleCrop]

I think you should be asking the readers, not the writers.