Does the hero have to kill the villain?

[Ireth]

In my novel WINTER'S QUEEN, I opted to have the villain, Fiachra, slain not by the heroes, but by a supporting character named Loegaire, who has a lot of reason to hate Fiachra. Despite my justifications (listed below), I'm wondering if people will be put off by this. My beta reader has already remarked on it as "strange".

1. Prior to the events of the story, Fiachra betrayed Loegaire's secret romance with Fiachra's sister to the King of their court; this resulted in the king cursing Loegaire with sterility, ruining Loegaire's greatest dream of having a child and basically messing him up for the next seventeen years.

2. Moments before his death, Fiachra is in the midst of trying to assassinate the king and usurp the throne. Loegaire kills Fiachra immediately in defense of the king, and the heroes opt to help the king, stopping his bleeding and stitching up his wound. This is consistent with their characterization, as they don't use violence unless others use it against them first. Also, I thought it would be an interesting idea to have them save the king rather than kill the main villain. This works in their favor, as it ultimately results in the king deciding to let the heroes leave his realm in peace, thereby repaying the life-debt they gained by helping him. Any other course of action would have screwed them over further.

3. Loegaire doesn't strike the killing blow with any knowledge that it's Fiachra he's killing, as Fiachra is masked by illusions. For all Loegaire (or anyone else) knows, he's simply protecting his king from danger, like any other loyal guardsman or soldier would do. This exonerates him of any implications of murder stemming from the grudge. Only when Fiachra is dead does the illusion fade and reveal his identity.

I'm still of the opinion that this is the most logical conclusion to the story, but I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say. Who knows, something might change my mind.

 

[TheKillerBs]

In the strictest sense, no. The hero does not have to kill the villain. What the hero does have to do, however, is to somehow defeat the villain. Someone else can land the killing blow, as long as the hero, in some way, won the conflict through their own actions, whether it be by combat, diplomacy, turning the villain to their side, or some more subtle way a conflict can be won. Otherwise, it might end up feeling unsatisfactory to the readers.

 

[Ireth]

In the strictest sense, no. The hero does not have to kill the villain. What the hero does have to do, however, is to somehow defeat the villain. Someone else can land the killing blow, as long as the hero, in some way, won the conflict through their own actions, whether it be by combat, diplomacy, turning the villain to their side, or some more subtle way a conflict can be won. Otherwise, it might end up feeling unsatisfactory to the readers.

*nod* I agree. And that's just what they do -- first by trying their hardest to persuade the king not to kill the MC (though Fiachra ends up stabbing the king before he can actually answer one way or the other), and then by garnering the life-debt via saving the king, which ultimately sways things in their favor and gets them a free pass to go home. The king can be cold and ruthless in his anger, but he's not wholly unsympathetic. Fiachra is another story. Death is the best option for him there.

 

[MineOwnKing]

I would leave it the way you have it.

Sounds like all the bases are covered.

I'm sure you are savvy enough to have picked a good beta reader, but it never hurts to review the qualifications that will best suit the success of your manuscript.

When choosing a Beta reader, it is important that their abilities in literature, surpass your own. They should be up to speed on novels written in the same genre and that have been published in the last few years.

Having three readers would be best. Any negative comment of one reader, not shared by the other two, can then be ignored as mere opinion.

It's also good to question the motivation of the beta reader. What do they expect to get in return?

Good luck.

 

[Ireth]

I would leave it the way you have it.

Sounds like all the bases are covered.

I'm glad you think so!

It's also good to question the motivation of the beta reader. What do they expect to get in return?

Nothing more or less than what they give me. I'm beta-reading their novel at the same time. It's a little longer than mine is, so I'm still working through it while my beta is done with mine (for now -- I plan on sending revisions in the new year). Tit for tat, kind of thing.

 

[ascanius]

In my novel WINTER'S QUEEN, I opted to have the villain, Fiachra, slain not by the heroes, but by a supporting character named Loegaire, who has a lot of reason to hate Fiachra. Despite my justifications (listed below), I'm wondering if people will be put off by this. My beta reader has already remarked on it as "strange".

I say no too. Though this is something I too am doing. I don't intend to hijack the thread but I have a question I would like to pose along the same lines if you don't mind.

In the strictest sense, no. The hero does not have to kill the villain. What the hero does have to do, however, is to somehow defeat the villain. Someone else can land the killing blow, as long as the hero, in some way, won the conflict through their own actions, whether it be by combat, diplomacy, turning the villain to their side, or some more subtle way a conflict can be won. Otherwise, it might end up feeling unsatisfactory to the readers.

I have a character who was abused/tortured by another non pov character for four years before she escaped. She was left physically and emotionally scarred, basically Ramsay Bolton from ASOFI... but worse, though the reader never knows what actually happened, only that she has scars and is a bit off.. Throughout the story she has to deal with him and her imagination turning her fear of him against her. At more than one point she tries to hunt him down to kill him but doesn't succeed. My idea is to have her go through the five stages of grief, he did shape who she is even if in a terrible way, to finally come to acceptance of her past. So at a certain point she ends up coming face to face with this character and doesn't kill him, and she forbids others to do anything. In the end he goes away free.

How would you react to reading such an ending.

This leaves me with a problem though.... Me personally I originally wanted her to leave him incapable of ever harming anyone again yet still alive (to suffer), and this goes very well with her sense of duty (save for suffering), which she is very stubborn about.

But.... I wonder... if this might also be the one time throughout the story where she doesn't give in to her sense of duty and lets him go because she is afraid of herself. So she has a choice, choose to be afraid and let her past control her or accept it and move on.

For me this is a personal dilemma too, cuz I would burn him alive and let him scream. However, and I really really hope I can pull this off, I really want the reader to understand that it is her choice and they can fault her for it but accept it at the same time.

edit:

My other option is to have him already debilitated by some old man disease where he is no longer a threat to anyone but still sane, enough time has passed for this to work. So she basically lets him die of old age in some backwater village.

Can this work? Or for a more general question does someone have to kill the villain to create a satisfying ending? Does justice need to be served?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

No is the answer, if there is anything that tugs at my sensibilities its that Fiachra is killed without the killer knowing its Fiachra. BUT! without reading it, I can't really say. Totally depends on execution... like most everything.

 

[glutton]

This leaves me with a problem though.... Me personally I originally wanted her to leave him incapable of ever harming anyone again yet still alive (to suffer), and this goes very well with her sense of duty (save for suffering), which she is very stubborn about.

But.... I wonder... if this might also be the one time throughout the story where she doesn't give in to her sense of duty and lets him go because she is afraid of herself. So she has a choice, choose to be afraid and let her past control her or accept it and move on.

For me this is a personal dilemma too, cuz I would burn him alive and let him scream. However, and I really really hope I can pull this off, I really want the reader to understand that it is her choice and they can fault her for it but accept it at the same time.

edit:

My other option is to have him already debilitated by some old man disease where he is no longer a threat to anyone but still sane, enough time has passed for this to work. So she basically lets him die of old age in some backwater village.

If he is still inclined to harm others and she lets him off completely, that would seem unsatisfying to me personally, and if he is likely to harm others in the future I would be inclined to turn on the MC especially if the justification is that she's afraid of herself. So other people are going to be victimized because the MC chickened out... that would seem pretty unlikable and probably make me start rooting against her. If he is debilitated by some old man disease then it would seem fine, but I would find it most satisfying for her to find him in a healthy state and leave him alive but incapable of harming others again.

Actually if the MC lets him going fully capable of harming people and then he comes back and kills her or something, I would probably be like 'Yes serves the dummy right!' cause I'm mean like that.

Alternate solution - somebody who she 'forbids' to do anything defies her and goes the 'leave him alive but unable to harm anyone else' thing for her, then tells her she is a weak fool and she doesn't disagree and accepts it with a bowed head. That would be satisfying enough too although it wouldn't make me like the MC, it would make me dislike her less.

 

[Netardapope]

It all really depends on what the story needs. In the case of your story I think what you did is just fine, especially since the side character has good reason to do so. If it was just a random schmuck it wouldn't be as satisfying, I'd say the killer should be ANY character with a valid reason to slay the anatgonist. When it comes to stories in general however, I wouldn't say that slaying the villain is necessary. I've yet to see a fantasy tale in which the main baddy is redeemed through forgiveness or anything of the sort.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I say no too. Though this is something I too am doing. I don't intend to hijack the thread but I have a question I would like to pose along the same lines if you don't mind.



I have a character who was abused/tortured by another non pov character for four years before she escaped. She was left physically and emotionally scarred, basically Ramsay Bolton from ASOFI... but worse, though the reader never knows what actually happened, only that she has scars and is a bit off.. Throughout the story she has to deal with him and her imagination turning her fear of him against her. At more than one point she tries to hunt him down to kill him but doesn't succeed. My idea is to have her go through the five stages of grief, he did shape who she is even if in a terrible way, to finally come to acceptance of her past. So at a certain point she ends up coming face to face with this character and doesn't kill him, and she forbids others to do anything. In the end he goes away free.

How would you react to reading such an ending.

This leaves me with a problem though.... Me personally I originally wanted her to leave him incapable of ever harming anyone again yet still alive (to suffer), and this goes very well with her sense of duty (save for suffering), which she is very stubborn about.

But.... I wonder... if this might also be the one time throughout the story where she doesn't give in to her sense of duty and lets him go because she is afraid of herself. So she has a choice, choose to be afraid and let her past control her or accept it and move on.

For me this is a personal dilemma too, cuz I would burn him alive and let him scream. However, and I really really hope I can pull this off, I really want the reader to understand that it is her choice and they can fault her for it but accept it at the same time.

Can this work? Or for a more general question does someone have to kill the villain to create a satisfying ending?

Eeeyeah. Well, first the safe answer: of course the character can do that. It could be just fine. It could be a very powerful ending. As a reader I might make a raspberry noise and scream "off with their head!" or worse, but perhaps the main thing is to not make it some surprise ending. If this is in her character, great, but if she's been foaming at the mouth for revenge for 400 pages and suddenly let's him go? That's trouble. Foreshadow the ending, make it worthy, and execute, then all will be well, even if the bloodthirsty among your readers, such as myself, are a bit put off.

 

[glutton]

*nod* I agree. And that's just what they do -- first by trying their hardest to persuade the king not to kill the MC (though Fiachra ends up stabbing the king before he can actually answer one way or the other), and then by garnering the life-debt via saving the king, which ultimately sways things in their favor and gets them a free pass to go home. The king can be cold and ruthless in his anger, but he's not wholly unsympathetic. Fiachra is another story. Death is the best option for him there.

They don't have to *kill* the villain but I'm not sure this makes it sound like they 'defeat' the villain at all, it sounds more like the problem of the villain is resolved by someone else before they are able to 'win' the conflict and they only manage to succeed after the villain is removed by the other party.

It might come off better to me if one of them *stops* the villain from stabbing the king and then someone else kills him, that would make them seem more active and vital in the resolution. I'm picturing this as they're talking to the king and then the villain comes up and stabs him only to be killed by the other guy which would kind of make them look like bystanders in the climactic events.

Another idea - maybe after the villain stabs the king initially, the main character could at least tackle him away from the king or something to prevent him from finishing the job when he's about to stab again? Instead of not confronting/engaging the villain at all and just watching during the climax.

 

[glutton]

If he is still inclined to harm others and she lets him off completely, that would seem unsatisfying to me personally, and if he is likely to harm others in the future I would be inclined to turn on the MC especially if the justification is that she's afraid of herself. So other people are going to be victimized because the MC chickened out... that would seem pretty unlikable and probably make me start rooting against her. If he is debilitated by some old man disease then it would seem fine, but I would find it most satisfying for her to find him in a healthy state and leave him alive but incapable of harming others again.

Actually if the MC lets him going fully capable of harming people and then he comes back and kills her or something, I would probably be like 'Yes serves the dummy right!' cause I'm mean like that.

Alternate solution - somebody who she 'forbids' to do anything defies her and goes the 'leave him alive but unable to harm anyone else' thing for her, then tells her she is a weak fool and she doesn't disagree and accepts it with a bowed head. That would be satisfying enough too although it wouldn't make me like the MC, it would make me dislike her less.

To clarify on this since I can't edit anymore - it would be fine to not kill the villain, but if the MC allows the villain to go free while being likely to harm others in the future, I will not forgive the MC so hopefully the MC is not meant to be likable lol.

 

[Ireth]

They don't have to *kill* the villain but I'm not sure this makes it sound like they 'defeat' the villain at all, it sounds more like the problem of the villain is resolved by someone else before they are able to 'win' the conflict and they only manage to succeed after the villain is removed by the other party.

It might come off better to me if one of them *stops* the villain from stabbing the king and then someone else kills him, that would make them seem more active and vital in the resolution. I'm picturing this as they're talking to the king and then the villain comes up and stabs him only to be killed by the other guy which would kind of make them look like bystanders in the climactic events.

Another idea - maybe after the villain stabs the king initially, the main character could at least tackle him away from the king or something to prevent him from finishing the job when he's about to stab again? Instead of not confronting/engaging the villain at all and just watching during the climax.

Well, in a sense the MC does defeat the villain beforehand -- when he tries to kill her, she stabs out his eye, thus a) destroying Fiachra's chance of inheriting the throne (his primary motivation), legally or otherwise; and b) angering the king into ordering her execution. This leads to Loegaire breaking the MC out of prison, and bringing her to where her family is trying to find her. They have a happy reunion, and THEN the king catches up to them. After that, MC's dad does the whole persuasion thing, Fiachra stabs the king, etc.

To clarify on this since I can't edit anymore - it would be fine to not kill the villain, but if the MC allows the villain to go free while being likely to harm others in the future, I will not forgive the MC so hopefully the MC is not meant to be likable lol.

That was never going to be the case in this story, luckily. Fiachra was slated to die from day one. XD Whether by the MC's hand, or his own sister's, or Loegaire's. (He does earn forgiveness and redemption in a spinoff/fanfic I wrote with a radically different plot, but that is very much non-canon.)

 

[glutton]

Well, in a sense the MC does defeat the villain beforehand -- when he tries to kill her, she stabs out his eye, thus a) destroying Fiachra's chance of inheriting the throne (his primary motivation), legally or otherwise; and b) angering the king into ordering her execution. This leads to Loegaire breaking the MC out of prison, and bringing her to where her family is trying to find her. They have a happy reunion, and THEN the king catches up to them. After that, MC's dad does the whole persuasion thing, Fiachra stabs the king, etc.

Is there a stigma against inheriting the throne while missing an eye or something... the MC could still appear pretty inactive during the climax, she definitely doesn't need to KILL him but I think tackle followed by stand between villain and king before other guy kills him would be a lot more satisfying than stand there while king gets stabbed.

I mean, the climax is pretty much where you would most expect the MC to be active.

 

[Ireth]

Is there a stigma against inheriting the throne while missing an eye or something... the MC could still appear pretty inactive during the climax, she definitely doesn't need to KILL him but I think tackle followed by stand between villain and king before other guy kills him would be a lot more satisfying than stand there while king gets stabbed.

I mean, the climax is pretty much where you would most expect the MC to be active.

1) There's an unwritten law among the Fae that no one can inherit the throne if they're not physically whole.

2) The MC is one of those who helps save the king by stitching up his wound, so she is active in that sense. There's literally no way for her to react beforehand; Fiachra is invisible, it's dark out, and even Loegaire hits him basically by luck and skill with a spear. The MC really wouldn't stand a chance in trying to tackle him, even if she'd been close enough. The MC was in front of the king, and Fiachra attacked the king from behind.

 

[glutton]

1) There's an unwritten law among the Fae that no one can inherit the throne if they're not physically whole.

2) The MC is one of those who helps save the king by stitching up his wound, so she is active in that sense. There's literally no way for her to react beforehand; Fiachra is invisible, it's dark out, and even Loegaire hits him basically by luck and skill with a spear. The MC really wouldn't stand a chance in trying to tackle him, even if she'd been close enough. The MC was in front of the king, and Fiachra attacked the king from behind.

Yeah but you could always change some of those details to favor the MC XD. The villain dying isn't even as important, I would probably prefer the villain being imprisoned or escaping while the MC does something during the climax over the villain dying while the MC does nothing. The MC having no immediate influence over the climax would be pretty deflating assuming I was invested in the MC.

 

[Ireth]

Yeah but you could always change some of those details to favor the MC XD. The villain dying isn't even as important, I would probably prefer the villain being imprisoned or escaping while the MC does something during the climax over the villain dying while the MC does nothing. The MC having no immediate influence over the climax would be pretty deflating assuming I was invested in the MC.

How does helping to save the king's life mean she has no influence? Just because she doesn't use violence against the villain in that instance doesn't mean her actions don't impact things. Keep in mind, she's helping the guy who wanted to kill her not five minutes before.

 

[glutton]

How does helping to save the king's life mean she has no influence? Just because she doesn't use violence against the villain in that instance doesn't mean her actions don't impact things. Keep in mind, she's helping the guy who wanted to kill her not five minutes before.

It may impact things but it doesn't seem as compelling in my mind, IMHO. Tackling to save the king after the first stab would seem a lot cooler to me than merely helping to treat him. I mean, it would be much more dramatic at the very least.

'No you won't bastard' vs 'I finally got there, please don't let me be too late...'

There's no need to kill or even injure, but if the MC doesn't even meaningfully interact with the villain during the final confrontation, that seems meh.

 

[Ireth]

It may impact things but it doesn't seem as compelling in my mind, IMHO. Tackling to save the king after the first stab would seem a lot cooler to me than merely helping to treat him. I mean, it would be much more dramatic at the very least.

'No you won't bastard' vs 'I finally got there, please don't let me be too late...'

Eh, I'll let things stew for a bit and come back to it after the holidays. A break will probably benefit me and the story.

 

[glutton]

Eh, I'll let things stew for a bit and come back to it after the holidays. A break will probably benefit me and the story.

I edited in the line 'There's no need to kill or even injure, but if the MC doesn't even meaningfully interact with the villain during the final confrontation, that seems meh.'

Even if she just talked to him and delayed him with words that would still seem better than what it sounds like as is. Since it sounds like 'stand and do naught' at this point.

'Obstruct' is the word I'm looking for. She doesn't have to kill or injure him, but I kind of expect her to at least obstruct him.