# Does anyone else wish they could read about more redeemed villains?



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

I just finished reading a manga called Pandora Hearts yesterday and really enjoyed it. One of the things I really liked was that by the end of the story pretty much every single character that had ever been characterized as a villain had also been made human and sympathetic and was at least somewhat redeemed. So whereas in the beginning there were a plethora of "villains", in the end there were no real villains at all. 

For instance, there's a whole family "the Baskerville clan" that are described as villains who seek to destroy the world early in the story. Only later do you find out that the history written about them is false. That in truth they are the guardians of the balance of the world, though sometimes their methods are questionable. You find out that the head of the Baskervilles ordered an entire mansion full of people to be killed in a famous tragic incident. And then you find out that it was because things had been set in motion by another character that would have caused all those people to become horrible soulless killing monsters and that preemptively killing them was the only way to preserve their souls so that they can continue to be a part of the cycle of reincarnation. So the people you thought were trying to destroy, were actually trying to save and protect. 

And every one of the members of the Baskerville clan, even the father of the main character who cast his own son into the "Abyss" in chapter 2, becomes someone you can sympathize with or at least pity and understand. 

There's also a character who is called a hero at first, before the truth comes out that he was behind the whole tragedy of the story for his own personal twisted reasons. And yet even he undergoes a redemption, becoming repentant and accepting the consequences of his actions toward the end. 

At the end of the story, there aren't any villains left. Everyone is actually working together to save the world from things that have been set in motion. They each have their own personal reasons for what they're doing, but they are no longer in conflict with each other.

This sort of thing I've found is pretty common in anime and manga, but not nearly as common in western fantasy literature. But it's something I've really grown to love and would like to see more of. Anyone else feel the same?


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

I have a villain sort of like that in my fantasy story, as far as doing something that brings a kind of redemption but it isn't necessarily a compulsive act done to absolve himself of his past actions. There's a strong irony in his past actions that were at one time considered wholly evil but may have been the best solution because of what is going to happen in the near future.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 15, 2015)

I'm sick of that in story telling in general for a multitude of reasons I won't go into. So, simple answer is: no. It can be done well, but usually, not. But that's just me.

I love a well written villain. They should stay that way.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'm sick of that in story telling in general for a multitude of reasons I won't go into. So, simple answer is: no. It can be done well, but usually, not. But that's just me.
> 
> I love a well written villain. They should stay that way.



Yeah, the villain that sees the error of his/her ways and then sacrifices themselves at a pivotal moment to atone for their past action is a cliche I'm not all that fond of.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'm sick of that in story telling in general for a multitude of reasons I won't go into. So, simple answer is: no. It can be done well, but usually, not. But that's just me.
> 
> I love a well written villain. They should stay that way.



Well, I would actually be interested in your reasons. I don't think I've seen it done very much in fantasy. 



Miskatonic said:


> Yeah, the villain that sees the error of his/her ways and then sacrifices themselves at a pivotal moment to atone for their past action is a cliche I'm not all that fond of.



Well, I'm not talking about characters having a sudden change of heart. I'm talking about characters going through an actual redemptive arc or their characterization developing over the course of the story to reveal how they are not actually as villainous as they seemed.


----------



## trentonian7 (Dec 15, 2015)

Game of Thrones and the following books do an excellent job of presenting truly "grey" characters. There are villains, there are horrible characters, but George Martin is very skilled at putting us into the minds of his creations. Jaime Lannister, for example. In the first book he pushed a small boy out of a window in order to preserve the secrecy of his relationship with his sister. Years earlier, he, while still a member of the king's royal guard, slew the king and allowed the usurping armies to enter the capital unopposed. However, later in the series there are a number of chapters from his perspective and you learn to empathize and understand his motivations. While I'm not a fan of the apologist villains who reveal they were abused as a child and that's been the drive for every evil thing they've done over the past 50 years, every villain is a person as much as an antagonist. Even the phychopath, who feels no regret or empathy, has traits that can be empathized with. My biggest pet peeve in an antagonist is an antagonist who is bad simply for the sake of being bad; the purposeless mastermind who wants to destroy the world for no reason. Serial killers are motivated by the need for control, for power, to see someone die. Sadists are motivated to see the pain of others. School shooters are motivated by anger or a desire to make themselves known to the world. Suicide bombers are motivated by religion and political beliefs. My point is, every villain has some sort of motivation and and if he has no motivation but to be a villain, he's not a real person. Furthermore, real people have traits that can be empathized with.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 15, 2015)

It isn't Fantasy per se, just everywhere in general. This isn't to say that a redemptive arc can't be great, like a Darth Vader, but behind Vader there was still an evil emperor. In fantasy fiction I've read them over the years but none that stick in my memory. Which might speak to why I wouldn't bother to write or read one without danged good cause.

In general, if a writer has gone so far as to achieve a great villain, I am really turned off by the villain's "redemption". If you're going to be evil, by golly, stick to your guns. If I'm going to watch a villain's arc, I would greatly prefer to watch their descent into "evil". Learn the point of view, empathize and maybe even sympathize with the point of view, great, but go too far and it washes out the story. Which then makes me say, "meh, who cares."

One great example on tv is Once Upon a Time, holy smokes, where the bad guys started out interesting, then got watered down, then flat out drowned into lifeless piles of humanist character goo... pretty much the same for the good guys in this case. 

A lot of times I think writers fall in love with their villains, and that's dangerous. It can weaken a story. Hannibal Lecter redeemed? Not at all.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 15, 2015)

trentonian7 said:


> Game of Thrones and the following books do an excellent job of presenting truly "grey" characters. There are villains, there are horrible characters, but George Martin is very skilled at putting us into the minds of his creations. Jaime Lannister, for example. In the first book he pushed a small boy out of a window in order to preserve the secrecy of his relationship with his sister. Years earlier, he, while still a member of the king's royal guard, slew the king and allowed the usurping armies to enter the capital unopposed. However, later in the series there are a number of chapters from his perspective and you learn to empathize and understand his motivations. While I'm not a fan of the apologist villains who reveal they were abused as a child and that's been the drive for the evil things they've done over the past 50 years, however, every villain is a person as much as an antagonist. Even the phychopath, who feels no regret or empathy, has traits that can be empathized with. My biggest pet peeve in an antagonist is an antagonist who is bad simply for the sake of being bad; the purposeless mastermind who wants to destroy the world for no reason. Serial killers are motivated by the need for control, for power, to see someone die. Sadists are motivated to see the pain of others. School shooters are motivated by anger or a desire to make themselves known to the world. Suicide bombers are motivated by religion and political beliefs. My point is, every villain has some sort of motivation and and if he has no motivation but to be a villain, he's not a real person. Furthermore, real people have traits that can be empathized with.



Empathy and redemption are two different things, although you need empathy for an effective redemption.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Well, I'm not talking about characters having a sudden change of heart. I'm talking about characters going through an actual redemptive arc or their characterization developing over the course of the story to reveal how they are not actually as villainous as they seemed.



Marvel does this in their comics quite frequently.  Bad guy, who can be quite villainous and sinister, ends up being (after many years, sometimes) either a hero or an antihero.

In movies, you see this with the character Magneto.  First X-men movie, he's truly the bad guy.  But in the second movie, he joins the X-men in their fight and becomes an antihero.  In the latest X-men movie, he's almost a downright hero (the aged version of him.)   Mystique follows a similar arc.  I believe that in the comic, Magneto and the White Queen of the Hellfire Club at one point each end up being official headmasters living in the mansion, replacing Professor X.   Even Loki in the movies skirts the edge of being an antihero in the last Thor movie (if I'm remembering correctly.)


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

trentonian7 said:


> Game of Thrones and the following books do an excellent job of presenting truly "grey" characters.
> 
> ...
> 
> My point is, every villain has some sort of motivation and and if he has no motivation but to be a villain, he's not a real person. Furthermore, real people have traits that can be empathized with.



I am NOT talking about grey characters or empathizing with villain's motivations for doing villainous things. 

I am talking about antagonist and "villain" characters undergoing their own character arc over the course of the story that leads to their redemption. It seems to me that in most fantasy, the antagonists never change and develop much if at all over the course of the story. They are mostly just there to create conflict and to stand in the way of the heroes. Even in books that bother to characterize the antagonists, they don't usually change over the course of the story. They don't have their own story arc. 

Darth Vader should have had more of a character arc during the Star Wars movies. We should have had more insight into his backstory and seen him slowly beginning to doubt himself and change his mind about what he was doing. I think viewers sensed the potential for a strong redemptive arc there, but it was still mostly just potential. That's why Lucas tried to tell his story in the prequels, but it was done in the wrong place too late. It wasn't the redemptive arc that people wanted. And telling the story of his descent into evil proved quite unsatisfying for most people. 

Honestly, I think there's too strong a tendency in the west to need to delineate "good guys" and "bad guys". I like stories, like the one I talked about above, that show how the heroes are really no different from the villains, except that they made different choices. "There but for the grace of God go I" sort of thing. I think that's much more... believable and true to human nature.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> A lot of times I think writers fall in love with their villains, and that's dangerous. It can weaken a story. Hannibal Lecter redeemed? Not at all.



Very true. There's a point where redemption is nearly impossible, like with Hannibal Lecter. Helping someone catch a serial killer doesn't excuse a past filled with killing and eating people. 

If the notion of evil insofar as how it is portrayed by the villain's actions can be challenged then there's a greater possibility for some type of realistic redemption or flat out disproving of the actions being truly evil to begin with. Playing around with the ideas of good and evil is more fun but sometimes you just need that representation of pure evil.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> For instance, there's a whole family "the Baskerville clan" that are described as villains who seek to destroy the world early in the story. Only later do you find out that the history written about them is false. That in truth they are the guardians of the balance of the world, though sometimes their methods are questionable. You find out that the head of the Baskervilles ordered an entire mansion full of people to be killed in a famous tragic incident. And then you find out that it was because things had been set in motion by another character that would have caused all those people to become horrible soulless killing monsters and that preemptively killing them was the only way to preserve their souls so that they can continue to be a part of the cycle of reincarnation. So the people you thought were trying to destroy, were actually trying to save and protect.



But then were they ever really villains to begin with if the history about them was false?

And on a side note, if you get a chance to watch the anime "Curse of the undead yoma", I'd love to read your thoughts on it. I seem to be the only one that thinks it's any good.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> But then were they ever really villains to begin with if the history about them was false?
> 
> And on a side note, if you get a chance to watch the anime "Curse of the undead yoma", I'd love to read your thoughts on it. I seem to be the only one that thinks it's any good.



Well, that's the point. From the pov of the main characters (and thus the reader) they were villains, but the end of the story they are clearly not viewed that way anymore. 

Do you mean Blood Reign: Curse of the Yoma? I'd never heard of it before. Looks a bit hard to find.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 15, 2015)

There seems to be a split.  Redeemed "in the eyes of the viewers/readers" or redeemed "through-and-through internally."

Is the villainy a mere faÃ§ade fooling the readers at first?   Or is the character truly villainous but becomes reformed, experiences a type of spiritual redemption?

The latter will of course also be "in the eyes of the readers."  But these seem to be two different things.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

FifthView said:


> There seems to be a split.  Redeemed "in the eyes of the viewers/readers" or redeemed "through-and-through internally."
> 
> Is the villainy a mere faÃ§ade fooling the readers at first?   Or is the character truly villainous but becomes reformed, experiences a type of spiritual redemption?
> 
> The latter will of course also be "in the eyes of the readers."  But these seem to be two different things.



I thought I made it clear that I was talking about both. Because the nature of storytelling is in _how_ you tell the story to the reader. So you can choose either to include the villain's point of view and give him his own redemptive arc shown over the course of the story, or you can choose not to show it from the villain's point of view and instead through how the hero's view of the villain changes over the course of the story as the true nature of the villain is revealed. It doesn't matter. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Dec 15, 2015)

I like really morally grey characters so its hard for me in most of the books I read to draw the line between hero and villain. It's more just that one's the main character and the other is adverse to them. So I have no problem with characters who aren't actually bad or have a true redemptive arc, but what I dislike is if they start working with the protagonist against an even greater evil. There's just something about that which makes me feel cheated. 

I guess I'm not really a fan of the whole "it was just a misunderstanding" resolution to a conflict, especially when there's an even greater evil involved. If the whole point of the story was that villian's aren't as evil as they first appear, I'd be okay with it, but if there's some other finale resolution tacked on after that I find it annoying. It's like saying "not everyone is as evil as they appear, except the new big bad"

I think part of it has to do with timing. If someone is portrayed as a villain, but early on before the actual plot of the book starts we find out that was a misunderstanding and the real plot begins, that can be nice. If you build up a villain the entire book and then in the last act say "oh by the way, I'm a good guy and there's a greater evil we have to go fight" it feels like a cop out to me. If the entire point of the book was that people aren't so evil as they first appear and we only find out the villain was misunderstood at the end, I'd be okay with that if it didn't have the greater evil tacked on because that almost defeats the purpose of the redemption.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Honestly, I think there's too strong a tendency in the west to need to delineate "good guys" and "bad guys". I like stories, like the one I talked about above, that show how the heroes are really no different from the villains, except that they made different choices. "There but for the grace of God go I" sort of thing. I think that's much more... believable and true to human nature.



Human nature itself might be the greatest evil. But on the whole I would disagree with these statements. But it goes into plenty of philosophical directions where lots of things need defined, and is really kind of pointless. Easier to just say:

Plenty of folks would probably like redeemed bad guys, plenty won't give a fig, and plenty will not like it.


----------



## Ireth (Dec 15, 2015)

I once did a non-canon spinoff story involving one of my favorite villains from my own works, in which the villain turned aside from his murderous ambitions, learned the meaning of forgiveness and found redemption and forgiveness through self-sacrifice (not a deadly sort, but significant nonetheless). I went from hating this guy to wanting to wrap him in hugs. Sadly, the version of him I intend to publish a novel with is still the villainous one, but at least I now know how he could be if things were different. And that's a nice thing to know.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I am NOT talking about grey characters or empathizing with villain's motivations for doing villainous things.
> 
> I am talking about antagonist and "villain" characters undergoing their own character arc over the course of the story that leads to their redemption.



Throwing in a little GOT... Jaime is a villian, you don't push a kid out of a tower while banging your sis and not be a villain. Do we empathize with him? Sure, we might come to, and he might seek redemption in his own self-serving way, but calling him gray is a little off... or... if you want to call him gray, you must admit a character arc.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 15, 2015)

Hi,

I generally don't like redemptive arcs. I don't find them believable.

A long time ago I used to go to the local gym and there was a guy there who was an ex-murderer / manslaughterer. He was out and had "found God" and so forth, which sounded good. But when you listened to him you realised that he still hadn't got it. He understood that killing was wrong - but not why it was wrong. He hadn't discovered guilt or shame for his actions, even though he had apologised to the victim's family. And even though he didn't intend to make the same mistakes again, he still made many of the other more minor mistakes like drugs / steroids that had led him to making the big one.

My thought was that he had learned consequences, and saying the right words, but not true empathy.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 15, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Throwing in a little GOT... Jaime is a villian, you don't push a kid out of a tower while banging your sis and not be a villain. Do we empathize with him? Sure, we might come to, and he might seek redemption in his own self-serving way, but calling him gray is a little off... or... if you want to call him gray, you must admit a character arc.



I'd say that Jaime is definitely on a redemptive arc by the point the books are at now.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Well, that's the point. From the pov of the main characters (and thus the reader) they were villains, but the end of the story they are clearly not viewed that way anymore.
> 
> Do you mean Blood Reign: Curse of the Yoma? I'd never heard of it before. Looks a bit hard to find.



I believe Blood Reign is the name of the English version. Definitely get the original Japanese version with English subs.

I'll try and see if I can locate it.


----------



## thedarknessrising (Dec 15, 2015)

I've always found the whole concept of good and evil to be relative. I was raised on _Star Wars_ as a youngling, and those films taught me that the nature of people is all up to a person's POV. That's been made even more clear to me now as I watch the saga for the umpteenth time. If you watch the OT from the point of view from the Empire, the Rebel Alliance is nothing more than a band of terrorists. We're never really told that the Empire is a malicious government. Yes, we can assume that because they built a weapon so powerful that it could destroy a planet. But even then, it's never said that they were going to use it for galactic conquest. As a matter of fact, some EU novels theorize that it was built to prepare for an impending invasion from a brutal alien race.

"But thedarknessrising, Anakin Skywalker is evil. He turned his back on the Jedi order and slaughtered many people, including children." 

Anakin did not perceive what he was doing as wrong. He wanted to protect Padme and his baby from death. He has a fear of loss, a fear implanted in him when he was 9 years old and left Tattooine and his mother. He turned to Palpatine for help, and soon became seduced by the dark side of the Force. He killed the Jedi because they were, by extension, a threat to his family. If the Jedi killed Palpatine, then he would have lost Padme, because he would not have the power to save her.

I try to write characters in this vein. There is no good. There is no evil. There is only how we perceive the motivations of ourselves and one another.


----------



## Stephyn Blackwood (Dec 15, 2015)

Joe Abercrombie, The First Law trilogy. Sand Dan Glokta could be seen to go on a bit of a redemption character arc. If you consider him evil in the first place.


----------



## Ireth (Dec 15, 2015)

thedarknessrising said:


> I try to write characters in this vein. There is no good. There is no evil. Their is only how we perceive the motivations of ourselves and one another.



That reminds me of a fairly well-known line spoken by Voldemort. "There is no good and evil; there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."


----------



## thedarknessrising (Dec 15, 2015)

Ireth said:


> That reminds me of a fairly well-known line spoken by Voldemort. "There is no good and evil; there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."



That's exactly what I was thinking as I was typing that.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 15, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> I generally don't like redemptive arcs. I don't find them believable.


I share this sentiment. Villains should have a story arc like the protagonist where they start out at point A and end up at point B, but if they turn out to be good or remorseful that just throws me off. In a book series that would be understandable to an extent. But in one book? A human being changing that much just isn't possible, imo.

Then again, it all depends on whether or not the villain is truly evil. The antagonist is just someone (or something) that opposes the main character on his/her path to achieving story goal. This doesn't mean that this person needs to be wicked, or a murderer, or some complete bastard. This can still be a person with humanizing qualities that's standing in the protagonist's way for his/her own gains that may or may not be self-serving. It's all about perspective.


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 15, 2015)

> I once did a non-canon spinoff story involving one of my favorite villains from my own works, in which the villain turned aside from his murderous ambitions, learned the meaning of forgiveness and found redemption and forgiveness through self-sacrifice (not a deadly sort, but significant nonetheless). I went from hating this guy to wanting to wrap him in hugs. Sadly, the version of him I intend to publish a novel with is still the villainous one, but at least I now know how he could be if things were different. And that's a nice thing to know.



I like writing non-canon stories. Somebody should start a thread about non-canon stories with main characters behaving out of character.



> A long time ago I used to go to the local gym and there was a guy there who was an ex-murderer / manslaughterer. He was out and had "found God" and so forth, which sounded good. But when you listened to him you realised that he still hadn't got it. He understood that killing was wrong - but not why it was wrong. He hadn't discovered guilt or shame for his actions, even though he had apologised to the victim's family. And even though he didn't intend to make the same mistakes again, he still made many of the other more minor mistakes like drugs / steroids that had led him to making the big one.
> 
> My thought was that he had learned consequences, and saying the right words, but not true empathy.



Realistically most people who have committed some gruesome crime are beyond redemption. If a character is a heartless sadistic serial killer in the first 10 chapters and then he decided to become good my suspension of disbelief will be shattered.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I try to write characters in this vein. There is no good. There is no evil. There is only how we perceive the motivations of ourselves and one another.



This is also completely different from what I mean. Evil actions, I believe, should be condemned as evil. But you need to make the distinction between the evil action and the person performing the action. An action can be evil in itself, while a person can't.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I thought I made it clear that I was talking about both. Because the nature of storytelling is in _how_ you tell the story to the reader. So you can choose either to include the villain's point of view and give him his own redemptive arc shown over the course of the story, or you can choose not to show it from the villain's point of view and instead through how the hero's view of the villain changes over the course of the story as the true nature of the villain is revealed. It doesn't matter. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.



To me there are still two different things.  Maybe you want to include both under the same heading and the question is as simple as, "Do you want to see a villain who turns out to be redeemed in the reader's eyes by the end of the book?"

But readers may require different proofs of redemption.  The redeeming may have various prerequisites.  What these are may depend on whether the villain begins as one who is fundamentally wicked in some way or begins as merely villainous from the MC's POV.

In the latter, it's possible the antagonist's _actions_ are the lens through which the reader and MC experience the antagonist as a villain.  If, during the course of the story, either we readers are given a backdrop for the villain–we come to know him better and see why he did what he did–or else we learn through some other means that his actions, though extreme and horrible, weren't all they appeared to be at first, the villain might be redeemed in our eyes.

In the former, the villain's inherent wickedness (define it how you like) will require a different set of variables for redemption.  It may require far more than simply showing how his actions are justified/reasonable.

An example.

We might have a villain who hits first one village and then another–and another, and another–killing all the children before moving on.  During the course of this, we might also be shown a person who is quite abrasive, not at all susceptible to the pleas for mercy from mothers and fathers, the screams of pain from children, and who generally disdains the filthy, unwashed nature, maybe even the simplistic superstitious nature, of the poor people living in those villages.

_If_ it turns out by the end of the novel that there's another really bad guy, remaining hidden from the reader for most of the book, who has infected all those children with an incurable and highly infectious deadly disease, and _this_ guy knew about him and was trying to prevent the total destruction of the human race....then maybe, possibly, he could be redeemed in our eyes (even if we don't particularly like him.)

_IF_ on the other hand this guy just loves killing little children in the most horrible ways, their screams are music to his ears, he falls at sleep every night trying to remember the little details of their flesh burning and the way the older, taller boys took longer to burn than the little babies...it's going to be a lot harder to redeem him later, and maybe impossible.  If at all possible, then his arc is going to be substantially different than the story arc for the first guy.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 15, 2015)

thedarknessrising said:


> We're never really told that the Empire is a malicious government. Yes, we can assume that because they built a weapon so powerful that it could destroy a planet. But even then, it's never said that they were going to use it for galactic conquest.



We're never told, but we're shown. They killed Luke's aunt and uncle and left a trail of dead Jawas in their wake and then tried to make it look like it was the Sand People who did it. Then there's the fact they blew up Alderan after Leia told them what they wanted. Oh there's also the niggling fact they desolved the senate giving complete power over to the emperor. 

Sorry, I don't think Star Wars is a good example of good and bad are dependant on POV. 



thedarknessrising said:


> "But , Anakin Skywalker is evil. He turned his back on the Jedi order and slaughtered many people, including children."
> 
> He killed the Jedi because they were, by extension, a threat to his family. Ifkilled Palpatine, then he would have lost Padme, because he would not have the power to save her.



I think this only holds water if they showed that the 6 year old kids were of any threat to him. They don't so it's just him killing kids so to me he's objectivly evil and lame. He also killed a whole bunch of sand people kids too for revenge. He had reason but it's still an evil act.


Man Lucas just does not like the Sand People.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 15, 2015)

Yeah, I don't think Star Wars is a good example for moral relativism.  In addition to the things Penpilot mentioned, in the new canon we have the Empire committing at least two species level genocides (on the Geonosians and on the Lasat). The old EU had instances of genocide as well.  The Empire doesn't flinch from using slavery or torture, and it ruthlessly crushes dissent.  Based on previews for the current season of Rebels, it's stealing force sensitive children to turn into Inquisitors.  It's forcibly seizing land on Outer Rim worlds, likely so they can strip mine them to build the Death Star.  And of course, electing to not be part of the Empire isn't an option.  

Anakin may have believed the Jedi were a threat to his family, but in truth his fears about Padme were a self fulfilling prophecy.  In attempting to save her, his actions led directly to her death.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 15, 2015)

FifthView said:


> To me there are still two different things.  Maybe you want to include both under the same heading and the question is as simple as, "Do you want to see a villain who turns out to be redeemed in the reader's eyes by the end of the book?"
> 
> But readers may require different proofs of redemption.  The redeeming may have various prerequisites.  What these are may depend on whether the villain begins as one who is fundamentally wicked in some way or begins as merely villainous from the MC's POV.
> 
> ...



Well, as I said, I don't believe in such a thing as a fundamentally wicked person. Actions can be fundamentally wicked, but people can't. People are fundamentally flawed, which leads them to perform wicked actions, but judging a person's actions is a complicated thing. I guess what I like about villain redemption arcs is how well it demonstrates this.


----------

