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

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

"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.

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.

Dont worry about it.

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.

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).

MissRiWrites said:

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

Click to expand...

Didn't Danganrompa do something like this?

MissRiWrites said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MissRiWrites said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MissRiWrites said:

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

Click to expand...

Ultimately, it depends entirely on the narrative you want to tell.
Does your story work well with a heroic figure, or moral anchor?
Does it work better without one?
Only you can decide that. The advice I'd offer is this. Once you have, stick to it.
Don't lean one way only to completely blindside your audience by swinging the other way later in the story.

MC-Stories said:

Didn't Danganrompa do something like this?

Click to expand...

It'll usually have one character that acts as a moral center. DR - Makoto Naegi, SDR2 - Chiaki Nanami, DRV3 - Kiibo. DRAE really tried to make Komaru morally grey in the ending, but she never truly gave up trying to find a way to save everyone.

It is a good reference for the complexity of a mystery, though, those Ch 6 trials were always a lot.

MissRiWrites said:

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

Click to expand...

1. No, you don't need a moral anchor, but the moral ambiguity does better when it comes from a very human place. A character you described in a prev forum having a mask to cover up insecurities fits this bill well. That said, your readers will be more inclined to treat the characters themselves as mysteries. Leaving hints at why your characters are the way they are will make for a more engaging story (ex: a character that hates anyone that wears a red shirt, they flinch at loud noises or people approaching from behind, they start arguments anytime someone goes to drink alcohol)

2. It's a good idea to have at least 2 ways to solve your mystery (even if the characters focus on one way). And you need to hint at these clues to the reader before anything happens. If your reader doesn't have enough clues to solve a mystery, it'll feel forced.

[For example, you have an opening scene in a museum. Your two main characters are talking about an article they read about russian roulette, and how a gun can have things other than bullets loaded into it. They're looking for where MC2 can put up their gallery debut. They pass an exhibit that's made of yarn art, where an overworked tour guide is showing a bunch of rich people the art before it's pulled from the gallery, and slips in that the artist would be willing to sell and needs the money. Someone in a janitor suit bumps into MC1, in a hurry to chase after some kids that want to pull a fire alarm as a prank. A few seconds later, a gun goes off, and one of the tour guests falls

If you had reveal later on that the tour guide was the yarn artist, and the gun was hooked up to a pully system, but the bullet was made of something else. It complicates what happens, but will still point to MC2 based on the conversation they had about already knowing a gun could be loaded with something other than bullets. Or if the reader analyzes everyone's motives/locations. All characters could have personal beef against victim, but MC2 wouldn't be able to have a gallery debut if the sale went through and knew the kids that planned to pull the fire alarm.

Upon reflection of the opening scene, MC2 was closet to the trap mechanism, making it the final clue MC1 needs to solve the mystery]

You can make it more complex by adding motives, directing the characters to focus on dead ends, or new information out of order.

3. I left a comment on the first chapter with my thoughts.

worldismyne said:

2. It's a good idea to have at least 2 ways to solve your mystery (even if the characters focus on one way). And you need to hint at these clues to the reader before anything happens. If your reader doesn't have enough clues to solve a mystery, it'll feel forced.

Click to expand...

For an in-print case study on this, the two "Jay Angstrom" books by Sharon McCrumb.
Bimbos of the Death Sun provided all the clues fairly early, some even BEFORE the actual crime (and not just in motive, actual clues to premeditation), that the reader can put together as the MC does. I believe it won the author one of her two Edgar awards.
Zombies of the Gene Pool, however, has the MC stumble on the final clue very early on, never reveals what it was to the reader until he realizes it was important, and then uses it immediately to solve the mystery. This was not nominated for any mystery awards (it was nominated for two others and, IIRC, won one of them) - but also was more a spoof of WorldCon culture than a mystery, so I suppose succeeded on that level (the first was a parody of generic fan convention culture and succeeded there even better than it did at the mystery)