Is redeeming a really nasty villain this way good?

[ClearDragon]

So one of my villains "Spectral" a Sauron like being is also one of my favorite characters. I have the idea that instead of being destroyed at the end of the story, what if he slowly is redeemed so I can have him in future stories?
My idea is basically, at the end of the war when his armies are gone and he's captured by his brother, what if instead of executing him, his brother secretly imprisons him with the execution being an illusion, in the hope that he can someday be redeemed.
Nobody would know Spectral is not only still alive but hidden in the royal palace.
I have some dramatic ideas, like a servant accidentally seeing Spectral and recognizing him, then getting punished by the "good" god-king Astral.
My other ideas include Spectral acknowledging his actions where evil and deciding he should punish himself regardless of his brothers wishes.
Also Astral suddenly having detailed knowledge of where the evil empire hid various powerful artifacts.
My intent is to have Spectral redeemed after a long journey of self reflection and remorse, but I wonder if this story is ever published would people find it hypocritical or something?
Would readers be like, "he killed a million innocent people and now he's a good guy? wtf!"
I want to write it in a way that makes the redemption genuine, but am not sure exactly how to do that.

Also not sure if this should be here or in 'world building'.

 

[ThinkerX]

SkipNox would know more, but I believe that there are roughly comparable real-world historical examples of this.

And the motive might not be altruism or a desire for redemption. Your villain had armies at his disposal. Armies require support, which would mean that he had at least some powerful backers. Likely, it would not be politic for the winner to decisively act against those backers. Hence, keeping the villain alive might be seen as worthwhile.

 

[pmmg]

It worked for Darth Vader. Its all in the execution.

 

[ClearDragon]

SkipNox would know more, but I believe that there are roughly comparable real-world historical examples of this.

And the motive might not be altruism or a desire for redemption. Your villain had armies at his disposal. Armies require support, which would mean that he had at least some powerful backers. Likely, it would not be politic for the winner to decisively act against those backers. Hence, keeping the villain alive might be seen as worthwhile.

True and good points. Maybe it can be both? Like if Astral really does hope his brother can be redeemed, but also wants the resources he had.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Fun fact: Sauron was actually offered the same deal. He just didn't take it... Source: the Silmarillion. At the end of the first age, Morgoth (who is Sauron's master) is overthrown. And the gods offer Sauron the chance to come back to the promissed land and a way to redeem him. He just doesn't take it and instead hides, which sets him up to become the villain in the lord of the rings.

People generally are fine with it. Usually, as long as the millions killed are nameless, unknown background characters, then readers don't care about them. Just don't have the guy kick a dog on the way to work.

The important thing I think is to show that he has redeemable characteristics before you start his arc. It's where the term save the cat comes from. Have the bad guy display some small act of kindness at the start of the story and you show how the guy has some remeable characters

 

[Gurkhal]

It all goes into what kind of story of redemption you want to write.

I would argue that Darth Vader's redemption is different from Sauron's possible (which of course didn't happen in canon) redemption. So it all comes down to what kind of redemption you want to give the character and what fits with the story.

If for example you show that the villain is actually haunted by his past, sincere in finding another way forward and actually do change in his ways, as well as some people rejecting his redemption or change due to what he's done, then it might make it more believable for readers and possible to accept as a redemption arc. Just don't give the character in question good things without blood, sweat and tears nor should he be able to wash away the stains in everyone's eyes.

Some readers, and likely characters, will accept and some will not accept his redemption. Some will call of bloody vengeance, some for harsh justice and some will be fine with the redemption. Readers are people and as such are all across the spectrum of opinions and reactions to what they read.

Its, in my opinion, a waste of time trying to find a golden road to bring all readers to the same conclusion, reactions and opinions about anything complex, like the redemption of a villain.

Your idea for a redemption arc sound interesting to me so I hope you can execute the idea and put it on paper successfully.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Redemption is one of our major series themes. There are a couple of requirements for redemption, and this is really basic, core values stuff. The one who is to be redeemed must genuinely desire it. They must be genuinely willing to make sacrifices to earn it. And they must be harmed as a result of their evil acts.

The guys are right, success is all about you. How you execute the story, and how you listen to your characters. Let's see it on the page.

 

[ClearDragon]

It all goes into what kind of story of redemption you want to write.

I would argue that Darth Vader's redemption is different from Sauron's possible (which of course didn't happen in canon) redemption. So it all comes down to what kind of redemption you want to give the character and what fits with the story.

If for example you show that the villain is actually haunted by his past, sincere in finding another way forward and actually do change in his ways, as well as some people rejecting his redemption or change due to what he's done, then it might make it more believable for readers and possible to accept as a redemption arc. Just don't give the character in question good things without blood, sweat and tears nor should he be able to wash away the stains in everyone's eyes.

Some readers, and likely characters, will accept and some will not accept his redemption. Some will call of bloody vengeance, some for harsh justice and some will be fine with the redemption. Readers are people and as such are all across the spectrum of opinions and reactions to what they read.

Its, in my opinion, a waste of time trying to find a golden road to bring all readers to the same conclusion, reactions and opinions about anything complex, like the redemption of a villain.

Your idea for a redemption arc sound interesting to me so I hope you can execute the idea and put it on paper successfully.

I understand, and yeah I hope I can write it well.

 

[ClearDragon]

Redemption is one of our major series themes. There are a couple of requirements for redemption, and this is really basic, core values stuff. The one who is to be redeemed must genuinely desire it. They must be genuinely willing to make sacrifices to earn it. And they must be harmed as a result of their evil acts.

The guys are right, success is all about you. How you execute the story, and how you listen to your characters. Let's see it on the page.

Yeah, my villain is not being simply pardoned or forgiven, he was already punished very severally and was told if he reverted to his old ways he'd be punished a lot worse.

 

[AlexS]

It's a time-honored trope for the season 1 antagonist to be redeemed and help the protagonists in season 2 against an-even-worse antagonist.
But such redemption must be carefully set up and feel earned.
Readers aren't stupid. If it just feels like "the writer decided to keep him", they will turn on you.

 

[Mad Swede]

Hmm. I think I'd want to develop the political aspects of your setting as part of making this work. Perhaps the reason the good guy wants to save (or at least not kill) his brother is to smoke out those who backed his brother. Maybe there's something else going on, like the two brothers working together behind the scenes and just putting on a sort of show in order to find the real big bad? (This last was used in Harry Turtledove's Videssos Cycle of books.)

 

[ClearDragon]

Hmm. I think I'd want to develop the political aspects of your setting as part of making this work. Perhaps the reason the good guy wants to save (or at least not kill) his brother is to smoke out those who backed his brother. Maybe there's something else going on, like the two brothers working together behind the scenes and just putting on a sort of show in order to find the real big bad? (This last was used in Harry Turtledove's Videssos Cycle of books.)

My similar. The brothers once did work together, but a rift formed from a misunderstanding. Also Spectral wasn't at the absolute bottom of evil, he had a noble goal in mind but disregarded the lives of mortals, there actually is a much greater evil he wanted to fight. Then although Astral technically has better morals, he'd be willing to 'forget' a massive genocidal rampage if he can have his brother back on his side again.
I should have explained this earlier, but I was tired and busy.

 

[pmmg]

It's a time-honored trope

Do you write in tropes, Alex?

I think this same thing also played out in the two Aquaman movies. I thought the first one did a good job of showing them at odds that could not be resolved. The second movie showed them getting closer together, but I thought it ended poorly. Aquaman should have given over the throne...but...that would not fit with DC lore.

I think the way to make this look genuine is that the whole story has to lay the groundwork for it. The dark has to exist in a way that leaves a path to redemption, and the reader has to come to understand that there is some type of internal struggle at stake that may be the key to reaching it. So the trick, I think, is to show the conflict within, while at the sametime, making it seem like it is completely captured by the dark. I would suggest a trauma that has changed it do something dark, and then some path to growth where it is finally able to release on its grief and hard heart.

Along with this, the hero needs a believable reason to either think he is reachable, or...just that his sense of justice does not require killing when imprisonment is an option. That he would hide it from everyone else might mean he has a lot of splaining to do, but that is for him to figure out. Maybe let the hero come to understand that violence and killing does not really make things better, it just makes it go on and on and on.

 

[ClearDragon]

Do you write in tropes, Alex?

I think this same thing also played out in the two Aquaman movies. I thought the first one did a good job of showing them at odds that could not be resolved. The second movie showed them getting closer together, but I thought it ended poorly. Aquaman should have given over the throne...but...that would not fit with DC lore.

I think the way to make this look genuine is that the whole story has to lay the groundwork for it. The dark has to exist in a way that leaves a path to redemption, and the reader has to come to understand that there is some type of internal struggle at stake that may be the key to reaching it. So the trick, I think, is to show the conflict within, while at the sametime, making it seem like it is completely captured by the dark. I would suggest a trauma that has changed it do something dark, and then some path to growth where it is finally able to release on its grief and hard heart.

Along with this, the hero needs a believable reason to either think he is reachable, or...just that his sense of justice does not require killing when imprisonment is an option. That he would hide it from everyone else might mean he has a lot of splaining to do, but that is for him to figure out. Maybe let the hero come to understand that violence and killing does not really make things better, it just makes it go on and on and on.

Yes that makes sense. Basically Spectral is kept hidden for a while for his own protection and the protection of others in case he really doesn't change his ways.
Also another question, would it be jarring to have the point of view switch between the two brothers? Like the chapters pov switch form one to the other? I want to show what both are feeling in the story.
I want to show Astral having doubtful thoughts about if what he's trying to do is a wast of time or not. Then I want to show Spectral's thoughts, where he acknowledges he's evil and does feel remorse, but doesn't know if he can be anything else.
I guess its like someone with an addiction is aware of it and would stop, but might not be able to. I've seen that happen!

 

[The Dark One]

Redemption is easier and more believable (for an arch villain) if you hint at unwillingness or mitigating reasons for the evil all along - and then the reader discovers them as a kind of twist. Aaah! He didn't mean to do all that bad stuff it's because of X, Y, Z etc

In fact he's a kind of hero!

A misunderstood and wrongly judged hero (who killed all those millions of innocents).

But try explaining that at Nuremberg...

 

[minta]

When a long, slow, and painful course has been worked-out for redemption, it can be pulled off. It makes a great case for writing and worldbuilding discussion.

 

[ClearDragon]

Redemption is easier and more believable (for an arch villain) if you hint at unwillingness or mitigating reasons for the evil all along - and then the reader discovers them as a kind of twist. Aaah! He didn't mean to do all that bad stuff it's because of X, Y, Z etc

In fact he's a kind of hero!

A misunderstood and wrongly judged hero (who killed all those millions of innocents).

But try explaining that at Nuremberg...

I'm aiming for something like that. There's a much worse villain he was fighting, but he got carried away with the "fight fire with fire" concept.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

The Dark Link in my Zelda story spends a lot of time Feigning loyalty to Ganon before ultimately deciding that being a good guy gets him a better 'deal'.
He'll still play the parts that Link most certainly wouldn't, and he might even cackle like a gremlin while doing some of them, but he walks that line and refuses to be out and out evil. Mostly because at the end of the day, he's a fragment of the hero's soul.

There are plenty of ways to redeem a villain, one of them is to introduce a 'worse' villain.

I will second the voices of others here, if there's no seed of doubt (in the path of evil) to pave the way toward redemption, it's far less believable when it finally happens.