Character realism - thoughts?

Lately, I've found that my favorite characters are the ones who adhere to neither the standards of 'heroes' or 'villains.' They're just people with their own flaws, ambitions, and private hardships. For example, in my longest-running novel, the 'villains' are antagonists simply because their motives conflict with the motives of the 'heroes.' In fact, my two main antagonists are far more honorable/decent than my narrator.

For another example, the kindly and sympathetic King of the ailing 'good' country is pretty much your archetypal Good King. However, he has had MANY mistresses; he made the mistake of jilting the wrong one, and she inadvertently set the entire plot into motion because of it (she may not even be named in the novel itself, but she basically shifts the entire balance of the planet and sets off numerous conflicts/wars; heavy stuff, huh?). So, in a way, the Good King is a bit of a villain as well, considering he nearly wipes out his own country because he had an affair with the wrong girl.

So what do you prefer reading/writing? Do you like your villains and heroes to be clearly distinguished, or do you prefer a approach with sympathetic antagonists and flawed heroes?

Discuss.

I love novels where the antagonist is an antagonist just because their motives conflict with the hero.

One of the many reasons I enjoyed DeathNote (for the most part) so much was because both L's and Kira's motives could be justifyable from many perspectives, and depending on your stance, you could see either as the hero or villain. They both had a cause to fight for, but they became antagonists of eachother simply because their causes conflicted and they got in eachothers way.

Oh goodness! I love antiheroes! I'm not sure if that's exactly we are talking about here, but antiheroes and antivillains fit your descriptions perfectly. An antihero is a protagonist who isn't directly GOOD, but IS the protagonist because s/he/it is the center of the story. An antivillain is, in the perspective of the antihero, is the BAD guy in the story, although that villain is actually doing good or IS good in some way.

I think this technique is very nice. It give a touch of reality in the story. Take The Cather in the Rye, for example. Holden Caulfield is one of the most flawed characters I've met. He thinks badly of almost all people. However, this LARGE flaw is the quality that makes him seem more real.

Reality is cruel, and the use of antiheroes and antivillains, for me, proves it.

Anything that'll mess with reader's heads, yes.

Black and white is an easy choice for the hero to make, so I tend to prefer greys. If only to play the Not So Different card on poor, unsuspecting readers.

I've also found you can get so much more plot out of grey villains, especially if they have good publicity. Because you have people dealing with the thought they're evil, and are convinced they're good (Conviction is really quite powerful. Look up certainty bias to get some idea). It's fascinating and also really useful for writing.

There are also more options. Black and white has good or evil win. You need to have some uncertainty in which side will win and by how much to keep an interesting story.