Could Good Guy, Bad Guy, Braca/Duracell Bad Guy and Good Guy 07 be dolls/action figures made by MU inhabitants, perhaps in the likeness of Toa and Skakdi?
I am asking this because I’m looking to get a community idea canonized. After some long thinking and discussion with many community members, this is the conclusion that we have come to be a possibilty, since this way, they have no major impact on anything pre-existing in canon while still allowing the sets to be canon by some measure and have a small role in the overall mythos.
“Good Guy” being a doll or action figure adds something small, just a tidbit to Matoran culture by adding something small that could be in the possession of a Matoran, a simple toy, while not creating any new character, species or contradicting what’s previously been established while still allowing the set(s) to fit into canon by some means.
The reasoning to wanting the set to be canon is for the sets to have some form of story purpose, even if minor. See, I think every set in deserves to have a role in canon by some means, since the sets were the main selling point of the line.
You have said you don’t remember how they look, so here are some pictures.
Left is Good Guy, Right is Bad Guy:
“Braca” (Don’t know the source of this name, and I don’t know if Lego has the rights to it), also known as Duracell Bad Guy:
Don’t you have a scale problem, though? Look at the size of Good Guy compared to the size of a Matoran. It’s way too big to be a doll or action figure, if you look at the size comparison between the two.
I’d imagine them not being of the same scale. The playsets, being minifig scale, are not of the same scale, an if you compare a Toa Mata and a Toa Inika the scale is very much off. I don’t believe they necessarily have to be the same scale as the main sets.
In reference to the particular element of scale, I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s too big of an issue. The size of Matoran characters greatly varied from 2001 to 2008, as did the Toa, for set-related reasons such as added articulation, but they remained relatively the same in-story. Taking that into account, the particular scale of the characters themselves wouldn’t necessarily be represented in-story, as much as the character models and general designs would be.
At the same time, while that may be the case, it’s best mentioned that these never did make any appearance in story, and no reference was ever made toward them. How many people would have use for a Piraka doll? At the very least, Gold Good Guy looks exactly like Turaga Lhikan, and is even within that size bracket. It made sense. Dunno if these do, however that may be disagreed with.
I wouldn’t necessarily envision the “Bad Guy” as a “Piraka doll,” so much as, well, a “Bad Guy.” A generic villainous rogue for use in Matoran storytelling and tales, this general embodiment of villainy that could be represented in stories, etc. The same applies to “Good Guy.” A heroic character that could act out various roles within stories; not necessarily a Toa, despite using a Toa Metru face.
It’s not my opinion that they couldn’t represent Toa or “Piraka,” that’s just not how I personally envisioned them. Strong arguments could certainly be made for either of them representing those archetypes.
That being said, to answer your inquiry we’d need to delve into what types of stories these characters would be represented in, which is a step or two past what the OP specifically requested, but certainly an avenue that could be explored if these characters became canon. Could Matoran potentially have Fables, stories that have a certain degree of separation from real life for the purpose of teaching a moral lesson? If so, general archetypes or specific characters based on Good Guy or Bad Guy could be extrapolated to exist rather than Toa or “Piraka” characters, which are real entities. Making the characters slightly more fantastical and exaggerated is a common storytelling trope even in real life, and is something that I could certainly see existing in Matoran culture.
If you WERE to go the route of them representing Toa or “Piraka,” the Toa were already beings of legend so it’s entirely plausible to imagine “Good Guy” representing a Toa character, or at least an entity who filled that archetype. Additionally, “Piraka” means “thief and murderer,” but was considered a vulgar word by Matoran, so adapting the concept of a “Piraka” into a story but with a more… acceptable and somewhat generic name? That also makes a good amount of sense. So really, it all comes down to interpretation.
We know that stories using made up characters exist within the Matoran Universe, with Irnakk being used by the Skakdi. However, for what purpose would a Matoran storyteller have with these fantastical characters when they would be better served using standard Matoran or Toa? For what reason would one have for making up an entirely new character/archetype when one exists for them that would hit far closer to home?
And even then, if Piraka is so vulgar a word to Matoran, there are plenty of other villainous archetypes to choose from. Barraki, Makuta, Rahkshi, simply bad Matoran.
It seems that if these theories need to be crafted, with all these possibilities in mind, maybe these Good Guy and Bad Guy sets are best to remain as they are: Simple promotional items that have never appeared in or have been referenced to in the story.
To address the first point, the answer to that is to simply take a look at real-world literature, mythology, or creative storytelling in general. The world is wide-ranging and filled with limitless beings, creatures, and entities that are used within stories. Some are entirely made up constructs to serve a purpose in conveying a life lesson, others are closer allegorical constructs to draw comparisons between real-world individuals and the people within your story.
There are multiple different plausible reasons why Good Guy/Bad Guy would appeal to Matoran rather than Toa or known villains, none of which are particularly relevant to the idea of them being included in the story in this capacity; merely the execution of that idea. One could say that… using the Toa, their foretold saviors and beings of legend, in petty, smaller-scale stories could be viewed as disrespectful, much in the same way that using real-world religious icons for smaller-scale stories could be. Another possibility is that they could be featured in more personal Matoran stories, taught with morality in mind. For all we know, Good Guy and Bad Guy could just represent Good/Bad Matoran, and using them in those roles rather than Toa or Supervillains makes perfect sense, because the stories would be designed with conveying a morality-centric message in mind.
Additionally, the archetype point doesn’t really invalidate Good Guy or Bad Guy. Implying that murderers, warlords, evil serpentine constructs, and morally deficit Matoran all have the same storytelling purpose/value is a dead-end point that really goes nowhere. Much as real-world stories don’t have only one possible “villain” role, the same could be said for BIONICLE stories. They serve different purposes.
Good Guy and Bad Guy’s storyline ambiguity and potential for theory-crafting is not a weakness, it’s their biggest strength. The fact that they have the potential to exist in such a role that could possibly be used to increase BIONICLE’s world-building potential while not affecting the main storyline in any negative way is an asset, not a negative attribute. They have the potential to be one of the most non-obtrusive canonizations in BIONICLE’s community history, giving a relevant and interesting purpose to several toys that have otherwise not been valued over the years; the fact that we’re having such an in-depth conversation over their potential applicability as in-universe storytelling devices proves their worth. That is, if @LEGOGreg opts to canonize them.
I feel that the attempt to look through the eyes of real-world mythology is a bit near-sighted, as BIONICLE has usually never been held to a strict real-world standard. That should be evident by the characters, scenarios, etc. If this mystical world does not follow real-world physics, why would it and it’s massive mythology do so?
In the story of Lhii, he’s just a normal Matoran (specifically, one with a yellow Pikari) who was the greatest lava surfer second only to Tahu. He died in while doing so, but that story was used to memorialize Lhikan and bolster the Matoran’s spirits. He didn’t need to be an oddly shaped “Good Guy.” He just needed to be a Matoran which would hit closer to home than a random unrelated character.
Additionally, why does it matter if a Toa is assisting in a small scale scenario? Wouldn’t that be a great example to humble the Toa? In what way would a nonexistent individual be a better placement than a Toa?
I mean, how don’t the murderers, warlords, etc not have the same storytelling purpose? They’re all evil. And what better way to defeat said evil than with a Toa?
Many would argue it is needless, and would only continue an increased disapproval of canonizations that have no use for anything other than to add on to the workload that newcomers to the community would have due to the long and rich story BIONICLE had over its decade run. And value means nothing to the sets as they are no longer for sale, and the story won’t be continuing. If people wish to use these “characters” in their own stories, nothing is stopping them. It would simply be (as it would be anyways) fan-fiction.
Once again, I fail to see how this particular point applies one way or another to the Morality Duo’s potential canonization. The comparison to real-world mythology is simply meant to illustrate the wealth of potential stories and circumstances that can be manifested when peoples’ creativity is left to run free and unchecked. That’s all; not drawing specific comparisons to mythological beings or circumstances, but demonstrating that storytelling is not as constrained as you seem to be implying. The only “heroes” that exist are not the Toa, nor is there only one level/form/type of villainy to draw from. There are levels, layers, and depth to our real life, and the same is true within BIONICLE mythos. Physics has no relevance to the creativity of the mind.
Once again, storytelling is boundless, limitless, and filled with possibilities. Rather than writing this post discussing the merits of storytelling and creativity, I could go write about three different example pieces of fanfiction showing the Morality Duo’s potential usefulness. In what way could they have better placement than a Toa? Perhaps, off the top of my head, a potential story where a Matoran is being taught by village elders the difference between being good or being bad. The “bad” Matoran, represented by a Skull because that is an often-used moniker of spookiness or an “evil” nature, could perhaps be a thief who goes around stealing different objects from people. Maybe one of the potential stolen objects could be “Good Guy’s” mask. Rather than lose his composure over the theft of his most prized possession by falling into sorrow or anger, maybe he takes charge and organizes the rest of his village to track down the culprit, putting his village’s needs before his own.
Alternatively, I imagine a scenario where a more broad, open-ended morality lesson could be taught, one that is meant to be relatable and serve as a fable of some sort. Using a Toa would not have the same effect, as they are larger-than-life creations that Matoran find difficult to relate to. Using “Good Guy” as a Matoran-esque being, whether he actually goes by that name in this hypothetical story or not, is a way to tell a story on a Matoran’s level, by creating an entity that they can relate to and comprehend. It’s almost like a self-insert character in that sense. Again, just a possibility.
There are very distinct storytelling roles for:
A low-level street criminal
A serial killer
A master manipulator supervillain like Makuta
A millitary Warlord and leader of an army
A kid who hasn’t been taught proper morals
And as far as what better way to defeat them, there are two possible answers for that. The first one is that Good Guy could potentially be used to represent a Toa if the storytelling dictates such a thing. There’s no reason that he could not theoretically represent such a thing. The second is that “You don’t have to be a Toa to be a hero.”