Is a story with zero 'good' characters actually readable? I’m worried my 'trapped-clue' structure is too complex.

[MissRiWrites]

I’ve been deep in the weeds of my current project, and I’ve hit a point where I need a gut check from readers and writers who actually enjoy this genre.

I’m writing a serialized mystery thriller where I’ve made a conscious choice: there are no "good" guys. Every character—from the siblings trying to survive the situation to the people pulling the strings—is morally grey. They all have their own agendas, and they’re all willing to make messy, questionable calls to get what they want.

My fear is that without a traditional "hero" to act as a moral compass, the story might feel too cold or unlikable for readers to really latch onto.

On top of that, the structure is... dense. I’m building a "mosaic" narrative where the clues are essentially traps. Information the characters find in Chapter 12 might link back to a minor detail in Chapter 7, but I’m intentionally making those clues unreliable or misleading. It’s meant to feel like the characters (and the reader) are being lured into a deeper web, but I’m paranoid that it’s drifting into "too complex" territory where it stops being fun and starts feeling like homework.

For those of you who love a good mystery:

1. Do you actually need a moral anchor to keep reading, or is a well-rigged, high-stakes puzzle enough to keep you hooked?
2. At what point does a complex mystery stop being "rewarding" and start feeling like the author is just over-complicating things?
3. I’ve been refining the first chapter for a while, specifically trying to make sure the 'morally grey' atmosphere feels earned rather than forced. If you’re curious to see how I'm setting up this web of secrets, you can check it out below. Any thoughts on the pacing or the sibling dynamic would be a huge help. This is my story link

 

[LiteraryWho]

"And Then There Were None" features a cast entirely made of unlikeable sociopaths, and is one of the most critically praised mystery novels of all time.

That said, a) everyone dies, and b) it didn't over stay its welcome.

Also, c) it wasn't written for the "WN crowd" who are, shall we say, not looking for a story that's too rough on the brain (or conscience).

In general, I'd say for any long work, the "main character" should be pleasant to be around, regardless of their morality. They can be a total POS, but as long as they're funny, readers will put up with a lot. A good example is this old webcomic called 8-Bit Theater. The least odious member of the main cast once created a genetic abomination which lived only to suffer, and it was still a very fun story.

 

[DarkCosmos]

Hmm... I honestly don’t think you need to stress about it that much. Every story has its audience, and with time you’ll probably find yours too.

Morality is not always what anchors a reader to a story. Most of the time, readers connect to characters through their goals, mindset, struggles, or even the way they view the world. A morally grey character can still be extremely compelling if readers understand them or feel emotionally invested in them. (A good example will be Fang Yuan from RI)

To Reader A, Character X might feel like the true protagonist, while Reader B might connect far more with Character Y and see X as an antagonist or side character instead. That’s one of the fun... and painful parts of writing stories with multiple protagonists and layered perspectives.

And honestly, people who enjoy mystery thrillers usually want complexity. The important thing is not whether the story is complicated, but whether the reader feels rewarded for paying attention. If the connections feel meaningful once revealed, many readers will love digging through the puzzle pieces.

So I’d say: write the story you actually want to write. The right readers will probably enjoy the complexity more than you expect.

 

[ThaddeusDeVilliers]

Dont worry about it.

 

[Jerynboe]

My wife and I actually have a half joking term that we use. The American Horror Story good person. Shockingly a few people in any season of that show are actually morally good, they’ve even fewer managed to get to the end of a season without being morally culpable with some incredibly horrible things or dying.

However, it is not at all uncommon for characters in that show who are terrible people to have redeeming qualities or likable traits. There are usually people who are a lighter shade of grey, or the bare minimum are indirect opposition to the pure evil characters.

Then there’s something like Watchmen, where every character is intended to be an awful person but it’s still a compelling story and there are guys who are comparatively good guys. This includes one character who was intended to have no redeeming qualities, but because half of his negative qualities were just that the writer politically disagrees with him, a lot of his negative traits were positive traits for people with a different philosophical outlook. (Rorschach is a pretty shitty person in aggregate, he’s a dark antihero at best, but he is one of the few people in the entire story who believes in anything and stands up for what he believes in).

The standards for “good guy” are embedded in the floor in a story where everyone is kind of a bad guy. What you really need to worry about is reaching a level of darkness where the audience doesn’t care what happens to literally anyone.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I tried writing something like that - except every chapter was told by a different character, adding to the complexity (most actually got two or three chapters, but never contiguous ones; a few only got one). Only three of the cast of, I think, seven had any redeeming traits at all (though two more seemed to ... at first), and one of them ... if he even existed ... enabled the worst one for years....
The biggest problem, for me, was having to step away from it when it got too dark and convoluted (and then having the computer die before I could copy it to another device).

 

[MC-Stories]

I’ve been deep in the weeds of my current project, and I’ve hit a point where I need a gut check from readers and writers who actually enjoy this genre.

I’m writing a serialized mystery thriller where I’ve made a conscious choice: there are no "good" guys. Every character—from the siblings trying to survive the situation to the people pulling the strings—is morally grey. They all have their own agendas, and they’re all willing to make messy, questionable calls to get what they want.

My fear is that without a traditional "hero" to act as a moral compass, the story might feel too cold or unlikable for readers to really latch onto.

On top of that, the structure is... dense. I’m building a "mosaic" narrative where the clues are essentially traps. Information the characters find in Chapter 12 might link back to a minor detail in Chapter 7, but I’m intentionally making those clues unreliable or misleading. It’s meant to feel like the characters (and the reader) are being lured into a deeper web, but I’m paranoid that it’s drifting into "too complex" territory where it stops being fun and starts feeling like homework.

For those of you who love a good mystery:

1. Do you actually need a moral anchor to keep reading, or is a well-rigged, high-stakes puzzle enough to keep you hooked?
2. At what point does a complex mystery stop being "rewarding" and start feeling like the author is just over-complicating things?
3. I’ve been refining the first chapter for a while, specifically trying to make sure the 'morally grey' atmosphere feels earned rather than forced. If you’re curious to see how I'm setting up this web of secrets, you can check it out below. Any thoughts on the pacing or the sibling dynamic would be a huge help. This is my story link

Didn't Danganrompa do something like this?

 

[Lysander_Works]

I’ve been deep in the weeds of my current project, and I’ve hit a point where I need a gut check from readers and writers who actually enjoy this genre.

I’m writing a serialized mystery thriller where I’ve made a conscious choice: there are no "good" guys. Every character—from the siblings trying to survive the situation to the people pulling the strings—is morally grey. They all have their own agendas, and they’re all willing to make messy, questionable calls to get what they want.

My fear is that without a traditional "hero" to act as a moral compass, the story might feel too cold or unlikable for readers to really latch onto.

On top of that, the structure is... dense. I’m building a "mosaic" narrative where the clues are essentially traps. Information the characters find in Chapter 12 might link back to a minor detail in Chapter 7, but I’m intentionally making those clues unreliable or misleading. It’s meant to feel like the characters (and the reader) are being lured into a deeper web, but I’m paranoid that it’s drifting into "too complex" territory where it stops being fun and starts feeling like homework.

For those of you who love a good mystery:

1. Do you actually need a moral anchor to keep reading, or is a well-rigged, high-stakes puzzle enough to keep you hooked?
2. At what point does a complex mystery stop being "rewarding" and start feeling like the author is just over-complicating things?
3. I’ve been refining the first chapter for a while, specifically trying to make sure the 'morally grey' atmosphere feels earned rather than forced. If you’re curious to see how I'm setting up this web of secrets, you can check it out below. Any thoughts on the pacing or the sibling dynamic would be a huge help. This is my story link

I think, the style you are going for, is designed to pose us all the deeper question about the consistency of "moral beliefs" or basic karma, as in, when you eliminate the "good vs bad" element, seeing the difference between everyone is just that much harder.

I don't see a problem with that, and it still may be a good idea to provide an exception or two, but maybe explain how and why they are exception, and also, more interestingly, if such an exception will remain exceptional forever, or break to the pressure of the same challenges at some point.

However, different characters will have their own different personal beliefs, and such should be obvious down the line. That is what will bring the flavor you speak of. I'm kind of dealing with the same example myself, and it has really enriched the story beyond what I thought possible... Doing what is right, might not be acceptable by other point of views, even when, the alternate choices are equally damning in their own way, often because, there isn't always a right answer when a time crunch is involved.

 

[bulmabriefs144]

I’ve been deep in the weeds of my current project, and I’ve hit a point where I need a gut check from readers and writers who actually enjoy this genre.

I’m writing a serialized mystery thriller where I’ve made a conscious choice: there are no "good" guys. Every character—from the siblings trying to survive the situation to the people pulling the strings—is morally grey. They all have their own agendas, and they’re all willing to make messy, questionable calls to get what they want.

My fear is that without a traditional "hero" to act as a moral compass, the story might feel too cold or unlikable for readers to really latch onto.

On top of that, the structure is... dense. I’m building a "mosaic" narrative where the clues are essentially traps. Information the characters find in Chapter 12 might link back to a minor detail in Chapter 7, but I’m intentionally making those clues unreliable or misleading. It’s meant to feel like the characters (and the reader) are being lured into a deeper web, but I’m paranoid that it’s drifting into "too complex" territory where it stops being fun and starts feeling like homework.

For those of you who love a good mystery:

1. Do you actually need a moral anchor to keep reading, or is a well-rigged, high-stakes puzzle enough to keep you hooked?
2. At what point does a complex mystery stop being "rewarding" and start feeling like the author is just over-complicating things?
3. I’ve been refining the first chapter for a while, specifically trying to make sure the 'morally grey' atmosphere feels earned rather than forced. If you’re curious to see how I'm setting up this web of secrets, you can check it out below. Any thoughts on the pacing or the sibling dynamic would be a huge help. This is my story link

What you need if you have no good characters is a sense of integrity. Integrity isn't about virtue (this is a common mistake) but consistency to values. That is to say, a self-interested person never working with a team, or a wicked person never doing right. True, some characters have character growth but at least one in the absence of moral characters should have a type of values that they stick to.