Why Seth Rollins' Character Has Been Confusing to Fans Since WWE Return

Seth Rollins might be the most confusing man in WWE.

The former WWE champion has returned to the promotion simultaneously as a conquering hero and as the same whiny heel he was when he left.

WWE Network aired an in-depth special documenting his long road to recovery. During a sit-down segment last week on Raw, Rollins' lifelong journey from young pro wrestling fan to recovering former champion, painted him as a sympathetic figure.

But after lashing out against the fans in his first promo and standing down from combat against Roman Reigns in a follow-up confrontation, it's difficult for fans to discern just what to make of the former Shield member.

Rollins has basically become the heel version of what Reigns is as a babyface. At one point during his return promo, Rollins said fans can cheer him or boo him if they want. This is similar to Reigns' credo of not being a good guy or a bad guy.

The problem is, Reigns is marketed as a self-aware good guy who acknowledges the animosity that comes with being the top dog. Announcers are on board with contextualizing the mixed and, sometimes negative, reactions directed toward Reigns because he's simply a different breed of babyface.

"

#SethRollins is coming out of this feud with #RomanReigns as the babyface. What he said in his promo makes you relate & connect to him.

— Sherron Watson (@Sherron__Watson) June 14, 2016"

Rollins is more of a conflicting character because he is marketed as both a hardworking babyface who never lost the WWE Championship and a slithering heel. The scattershot booking with Rollins may be creating apathy among viewers. Despite his recent return in a main event capacity, Raw continues to struggle during the post-WrestleMania lull. Up against the unstoppable NBA Finals, viewership for Monday's go-home Raw dipped under three million per ShowBuzzDaily.com (h/t Marc Middleton of WrestlingInc.com).

The shades of grey used to book Reigns creates intriguing matchups and impassioned responses only because it's so unique in comparison to how WWE books every other talent. If every WWE Superstar was booked like both a bad guy and a good guy, it would be difficult to pit them against one another with any sort of purpose.

Should fans be cheering for Rollins because he never lost the title or Reigns because he Rollins attacked him from behind? Is Rollins the sympathetic babyface because he worked hard and recovered from a serious injury, or is Reigns the sympathetic figure with everybody (down to his BFF Dean Ambrose) gunning for him?

WWE has clearly opted to treat Rollins as a heel, but there needs to be consistency throughout his persona. If Rollins truly is a villain, his recovery footage should have included whining and screaming at doctors, not persevering through pan. His sit-down interview should come with a tone of bitterness, not determination. 

Fans of this generation will react however they want, but regardless of meta philosophies, it's up to WWE to tell a competent story of good against evil. Unfortunately, when it comes to Rollins, his role of good or evil changes with every passing segment.