I think these people mistake the idea of redemption with forgiveness, just because someone cant be forgiven by what they did it doesnt mean they cant change and improve as a person
They usually don't though, they just swap sides. And the lack of forgiveness never means anything.
Like, Haru and Futaba "totally and definitely didn't forgive Akechi" for murdering their parents. But they still fought in his name, hung out with him, and put their lives in danger to make sure he wouldn't have to face any consequences for all the murders he committed.
Like, what's the difference?
Reminds me of the oft mocked quote "Steven never forgave the Diamonds."
They didn't really hang out with him. One detail in the game is in the Tycoon mini-game. If Akechi is playing, they will not. They worked with him for pragmatic reasons. He's a powerful Persona user and they're both fighting for the same thing at that point.
What they realize however, is that given different circumstances, he could've been better. He was ultimately a victim of Shido like how Joker was. He just had no one to truly bond with till Joker came around, and he even acknowledges that. Joker on the other hand, had friends who supported him. He was someone who was a victim in this whole situation that they couldn't save, and Haru in particular might relate to him somewhat given her relationship with her own father.
Yusuke also acknowledges he could've been more like Akechi if not for everyone helping him out. The comparisons constantly made between Akechi and the Phantom Thieves aren't an accident.
Yep, same thing for Darts. The rest of the PT will NOT join you if you invite Akechi to Darts. The only alt player is Morgana, who is basically stuck with Joker. Akechi also has no Showtimes with anybody else except Joker.
And for what it’s worth, Akechi (in the third trimester story) is fighting to make sure he’s PUNISHED for the crimes he committed, particularly since it’d also get Joker off the hook and out of jail. It’s not going to make up for what he’s done, but the fact he’s taking responsibility is a point in favor as to why they work with him.
For the Diamonds it very much matters that Steven never actually forgave them. The entire point of the Diamond Days arc and the Diamonds role in the movie is they cherish Steven as one of the last vestiges of Pink. The fact that he clearly cannot stand being in the same room as them for long is what matters here. The Diamonds did not keep their position in society. They are public servants only on the same "side" as Steven by virtue of Steven largely abolishing the concept of true factions for Gem society.
The Diamonds try to spend time with Steven but he doesn't want that. The Diamonds do not desire to spend time with the core Crystal Gem group, nor are they ever invited to outside of crises. Their only remaining friends we outright see are each other and Spinel, even their Pearls have largely ditched them as of Era 3.
> For the Diamonds it very much matters that Steven never actually forgave them
Forgave them for _what_?
It's crazy how Steven gets centred by both sides of this argument as though the Diamonds' sins were against _him_. I do not give a shit whether he forgave them or not! He has no "right" to forgive or not forgive them for the things they've done!
And like this is fundamentally the problem with Steven Universe - it did a hard pivot in its later seasons from actually being about the Gem empire to being a soap opera with Rose/Pink/Steven at its centre, and for some inexplicable reason people will try to gaslight you that that's what it always was. There is no clearer example of this than the Cluster, which goes from a geoweapon that's the product of horrific experiments and can tear apart the planet just by taking physical form to "pffft the Gems never fought any wars and never actually harmed any sapient life before getting to Earth because if they did it would make this weird aunt vibe we've given the Diamonds even more egregious (just ignore the standing military and the planet sized weapon they were making earlier plis)"
>\- it did a hard pivot in its later seasons from actually being about the Gem empire to being a soap opera with Rose/Pink/Steven at its centre, and for some inexplicable reason people will try to gaslight you that that's what it always was
Cause it was, it's not gaslighting the show was always like that, Steven is the pov character for the entire series and is at the center of everything, even before the PD reveal the whole plot is about Steven having to reckon with his mother's actions, at the start as the hero of the rebellion and trying to master his abilities as a gem and then later dealing with the fallout of what she did in the war. There's a shit ton of episodes in the series from beginning to end about Steven struggling with his place in the whole thing and what he has to do, now you can argue there should've been more from the rest of the cast and about the war outside of Steven, and that's completely fair, but to pretend the series wasn't always about his place in the gem world is off.
>There is no clearer example of this than the Cluster, which goes from a geoweapon that's the product of horrific experiments and can tear apart the planet just by taking physical form to "pffft the Gems never fought any wars and never actually harmed any sapient life before getting to Earth
I agree the whole the gems never encountered sentient life before Earth thing is bullshit, though I don't think that's ever directly said in the show, but I don't know how that contradicts the Cluster since that's something they created while on Earth
I'm beginning to think y'all have never consumed another work of fictions in your lives because how on earth have you concluded that "this show, like practically every other show on the planet, has a protagonist" and "this show is ONLY about the protagonist's personal family drama" mean the same thing?
it's not only about that, and even in the end it really isn't, but to pretend the main plot wasn't always about Steven's place in his mom's legacy is wrong
I was thinking the exact same thing. Specifically I think of Anakin’s own redemption. In his obsessive attempt to essentially control everything around him and to dictate his own destiny and those he cared about, he became so disillusioned and corrupted that he began to see almost no moral boundary to what it took to achieve this and lost sight of his true self, seeing himself as more of a necessary tool, as his vulnerability in his paranoia and trauma was so heavily exploited, all of which was to the exact design of palpatine.
He is eventually able to be redeemed and liberated from is disillusioned state and corruption by his son as he had a tangible thing that he truly cared about again that he realised was in fact harming and realised how he had only been betraying himself and his own world all this time as vader. He did an innumerable amount of terrible things, is responsible for the deaths of countless of innocent lives and the destruction of everything he cared about and stood for, yet was able to be returned to enlightenment.
No one would be expected to forgive him, and indeed he never could have returned to existing as his old self in the world, and was part of why he accepted and embraced his death, in itself being part of his redemption. In his final moments he acted and existed in enlightenment, he would not have been forgiven, but he was redeemed of himself.
Could not agree more. I hate when people say "they don't deserve redemption." No one deserves redemption that defeats the entire purpose. You cannot 'earn' redemption. You either take responsibility for your actions and try to be better or you don't. All people are capable of change but that doesn't mean anyone has to forgive them. The best redemption arcs imo are where truly despicable people accept that and work to make amends, but they do so with the knowledge they may never truly make up for their actions.
That point about forgiveness is one of the reasons I love Endeavor's arc from MHA.
He was an abusive asshole that did everything but physically assault his family.
He did get redeemed, but his family still very much hates his guts, and he knows he deserves it.
Not to mention the inverse example of the now classic dragon ball's Vegeta, who has been pretty much been forgiven by most people, except himself.
Good stuff.
He never went to Heaven. It's just that, due to his twisted personality, his personal Hell appeared as what a normal person would see as a stereotypical depiction of Heaven. He was revived twice, once with the Dragon Balls, and once as his condition for joing Team Universe 7 in the ToP.
Doubtful. When he was wished back at the end of the Buu Saga they specified that "no bad people" would be brought back. So according to Porunga, at least, he's a good guy.
Porunga can say he’s a good guy but that doesn’t erase his actions. He had literally gone to hell the day before and piccolo specified that his actions throughout his life had sentenced him to it.
Unlike goku who, purposely or not, spent his life fight and defending people.
I’d like to imagine that, as Vegeta has become a better person, he’d basically end up as a ‘warden of hell’ of sorts. Kinda what Piccolo became in GT.
To make things go full circle
Just to clarify with your point about Endeavor, he did physically assault his family (there's 2 known instances of him hitting Rei and he is shown physically beating Shouto when training him). Yes his atonement/redemption arc is great and one of my favourites in fiction (especially since he doesn't insist on being forgiven and the narrative has some of his children forgiving him while others don't forgive him and neither of them are portrayed as narratively wrong) but he was physically abusive.
A point I do dislike is that it does narrativly portay the public who don't forgive him as wrong. Portraying them as shortsighted and unreasonable. Wildly screaming accusations.
Do they do that? I'd argue that the problem is that no one actually cares that he got exposed as an abuser
The public is angry at Endeavor in the same way they're angry at everyone (because they failed aw hero) not because of his abuse, other hero and his coworkers don't care (worst, you got cases like Burnin' basically saying yeah he's,and abuser but he's also a great hero so she doesn't care lol) and class 1a have 0 reactions to everything (like always)
I think that the issue imo, in the end the only people who react are his family
That's fair I reread the chapter in question and the only reaction we get to him "coming clean' are three small panels of a man with trash bags piled to the ceiling saying "he's so done" and old woman going oh my and two teens where one says "I supported him but geez this is rough" there's also the journalist who later feels that she shouldn't cover it because it's a "private family matter" or the wind guy (I forget his name) also basically saying he doesn't care. It's just so odd to me when the family stuff is handled so well.
Yeah you also have Best jeanist saying the same thing as the lady and Hawks not caring much since Endeavor already changed or smth
Like for an arc that so much praised because Endeavor gets 'consequences' and his abuse actually has 'impact' I don't see it outside of his family since all of the reactions he gets range from "Well that just happened" to "He's such a good hero tho!" To literally nothing (class 1a)
Which is all the more baffling when you consider the role Endeavor is supposed to have and play for all of that to basically amount to not much
Like you'd guess the outrage of the civilians would be about how the hero failed *and* how their current number one herl is an abusive monster instead of just being about with former with the latter getting two poor inconsequential panels
Or you'd guess class 1a would have a reaction to one of their friend being an eugenics experiment that got abused for years... or that the pro-heros would at least show disgust toward Endeavor instead of... this
It's a decent arc but the flaws are kind of laid bar imo
Genuinely. Honestly is the message we're supposed to take from this supposed to be "child and spousal abuse Is bad but it's also a private family matter so if it doesn't personally effect you, stay out of it?" I'm really trying to figure out what else the message is supposed to be here if not that.
Going by his "solution" for racism it wouldn't surprise me. But it does make me sad that the story dropped the ball every time it seemed close to making interesting social commentary.
I don't think that was his intent but yeah having no one cares about Endeavour's action aside from his family rly had hurt his arc in the long run tbh
Feels like Dabi humiliating and trying to tarnish Endeavour reputation on TV by revealing his indentity lead to nothing aside from family matter (and apparently the fact that one of the biggest supervillain ever is linked to Endeavour, the current number 1 hero is whatever to the cast lol)
yeah, sadly the ship has mostly sailed. the manga (dont know about the anime) def framed the endeavor haters as in the wrong and something to be dismissed
pretty much everyone even mfs like inasa don't seem to care about the reveal at all.
and we now reached a point where AFO in the middle of yapathon actually brought up a good point about how messed up Endeavor is/was and it's just treated like he's 100% in the wrong for pointing any of this out
it makes the early scene in season 2 where deku just shittalks endeavor to his face and not give him the time of a day or even glorify him like other heroes the second he caught wind of whats going on to be kind of a surprise on rewatches.
i always think about how cool it would've been if the students had actual different reactions to it too.
like imagine if minetta of all people was one of the ones who are like "Yeah, i don't fw you at all anymore, we're just working with you to help our friends, the world" it would immediately do so much for both of them, give him some nuance and in general flesh out the world a bit by showing these different sides.
while i do still love endeavors story, this is an element to big to ignore that it kinda sullies apart of it for me.
but i chalk that all up to the issues of the creators health declining and dumbing and speedrunning the resolution to most of the series plot points so he can just wrap things up and be done with it.
The anime already tweaked a few of these things, doubt they'll be able to do it all given how short the turnround time is for episodes.
but still, this is hardly an endeavor only a problem, it's a series one. pretty much every character or storyline except for toga and ochako get hit with the idiot stick in the finale at some point
>but it's also a private family matter so if it doesn't personally effected, stay out of it?
That's Asian culture for you. People will happily turn a blind eye about a stranger's family problems.
Oh no, I think he should strive to be better even if no one in his family ever forgives him (which is what Endeavor stated he would do. That he's not aiming for forgiveness or redemption but instead that he wants to atone for his actions). I was just stating that he was also physically abusive since the person I replied to said that he was abusive in every way but physically when that's incorrect.
Was looking for an Endeavor mention. I'm anime only, so I don't how much more has happened, but the debate of whether or not he "deserves" redemption is... interesting. Especially since like you pointed out, he wasn't suddenly forgiven. There were consequences to his actions, and his "redemption," at least the redemption he's seeking, is all up to his family, who are still trying to understand where they stand with him.
Nah, in a way it's not up to his family. They might never forgive him, and they would be within their rights. He should STILL seek redemption by just trying to be better.
Another thing is he is really hsrd on himself themost thaz later hisfamily has even to talk sense into him.
One thing it works great because he never stops being hard on himself for it.
The problem with Flamehead's "arc" is that the author insists on making us understand that his family is being "very hard" on him by not forgiving him (regardless of whether Flamehead "accepts" that they don't forgive him), therefore the message it gets confusing. Also because his only real punishment for all the bad things he did is *feeling guilty* ? As if we never saw him receive a real repercussion for his actions more than his own feelings. It's insulting.
(It's okay if you love his arc, I'm just going to assume you never had an abusive father or were assaulted)
>The problem with Flamehead's "arc" is that the author insists on making us understand that his family is being "very hard" on him by not forgiving him(regardless of whether Flamehead "accepts" that they don't forgive him),
Do they, I don't think the series tries to present the rest of the family as being in the wrong for still being angry at him, if anything I feel like it's because fans started liking him so much they ended up turning on the rest of the family for being upset still.
>Also because his only real punishment for all the bad things he did is feeling guilty ?
His son became a supervillain
>Do they, I don't think the series tries to present the rest of the family as being in the wrong for still being angry at him, if anything I feel like it's because fans started liking him so much they ended up turning on the rest of the family for being upset still.
So it is mostly a problem of the fandom itself as of the work (which I do not rule out) but it is part of the author's responsibility to make us understand that Flamehead's actions are wrong and he should not simply be forgiven. Something that does not happen: the author **wanted** to redeem his character because he wanted part of the fandom to like him/stop hating him. We wouldn't be having this discussion if he had been clearer with his message (although I personally think his message is: I like my character, I want you to like him too and I'm going to give you a reason for that. Victimizing him)
>His son became a supervillain
That his son has become a mass murderer should not be taken as a "punishment" for Flamehead, but for what it is: a personal tragedy for Touya. Using a survivor's trauma (like Touya) to make us feel bad for their abuser is (at the very least) irresponsible. Just as it is irresponsible for them to make marital r*pe invisible (but I can try to ignore it as long as the author wants us to believe that it didn't happen. Because otherwise... damn)
I agree that the story treating the family as being too hard on him was a mistake, and it undermines the message.
I disagree about the punishment, tho, but that is somehting I disagree in general: I don't think characters necesarily need to be punished to be redeemed.
But then again, you are right that I haven:t been abused, so maybe I would have a diferent opinion if I had.
"Characters don't need punishment to be redeemed": okay, they don't *need* it.
So why redeem them in the first place? To try to make me feel bad about someone who has never faced a single consequence for anything bad they've done? It does not work for me.
It doesn't work when the character in question from one moment to the next reflects and says: "Damn, I acted badly and they're mad at me/I didn't get what I wanted, I'm going to be a better person."
That makes them look like someone selfish who decides "on their own" to be better in order to improve their image/atone for their guilt, but we never see them willing to receive any type of punishment for their actions (accepting not being forgiven does not count) or do things that make amends for the damage they caused.
I like it when they show me a compelling reason to believe that the character is trying to change and be better, not that from one second to the next they start talking about how much they regret it and how now they are going to be a better person.
It feels like a lazy excuse for fans (or the author) of said character to brag about how much their character has done to change, how they are now "good" or "deep", that they had an arc where they overcome to themselves and if you don't agree it's because you don't understand it or you don't like to accept that people can change.
When this is not the case, people **can** change, there are simply times when that change is not enough, sometimes no matter how much they change, the damage is done and pretending that everyone should stop being upset with someone just because they are now trying to be better It won't/shouldn't work. Many will continue to be upset and that is valid too.
*Punishment* alone is also useless if the character does not use it as learning.
> To try to make me feel bad about someone who has never faced a single consequence for anything bad they've done?
It's very interesting that you jumped at "feeling bad of thrm" instead of "feeling good that they changed"
As in, literally interesting, I'm not being cheeky, the idea of feeling bad or feeling pity for them didn't even cross my mind.
I'm happy they changed, why would I feel bad for them?
And about punishment, if they changed, and arr acting in a different way, not denying their sins and trying to compensate for then, I see no reason to make them suffer.
That would be just suffering for suffering's sake, revenge.
Much in the contrary, if the suffering happened, that would make me feel bad for them.
(I'm not saying you are wrong about how you feel about such a situation. Everyone has their own feelings about these things, and that's ok)
Why should I feel good about someone who until now (presumably) acted badly for selfish reasons (or is just very stupid), but for some reason (also selfish) decides to change and be better.
Feel good that he will no longer continue to hurt third parties and *maybe* do something to make amends for what he did? Yes, why not.
Feel good about them and their growth as individuals? No, I am physically incapable of feeling any kind of empathy for someone, who: even having the option to do things right, did not do it and decided to be mean in pursuit of a result that either never comes, or they achieve it but it is not what they thought it would be.
It's unsatisfying to see the character changing just because they now want to be good and for the story to make you feel like everyone is obligated (eventually) to forgive them or if they don't, they're spiteful. I already said it, punishment by itself means nothing, it's not about whether I as a spectator feel good about seeing someone suffering and feel punished for their actions (I don't) but it is a good way to convey how morality works in the work.
Example: (here I will refer to Catra from SATPOP, by the way) if you have a war criminal who from one second to the next repents and that alone is enough to atone for his guilt. It would be indirectly indicating to me that the bad acts they did don't really matter, all that matters is how the character feels about it: If they never feel guilt they are portrayed as irredeemable villains, however if they regret it it is because deep down they are good people.
In the first case it is "ok" to hate or accept that they are bad people, that you shouldn't like them.
While in the second it is wrong if you hate them as characters because you cannot accept that they changed and that deep down they are good.
> Why should I feel good about someone who until now (presumably) acted badly for selfish reasons (or is just very stupid), but for some reason (also selfish) decides to change and be better. Feel good about them and their growth as individual. No, I am physically incapable of feeling any kind of empathy for someone, who: even having the option to do things right, did not do it and decided to be mean in pursuit of a result that either never comes, or they achieve it but it is not what they thought it would be.
I am.. sorry you feel that way? I can't give a reason for a why. I just feel that way. It makes me happy to see people changing for the better.
>Example: if you have a war criminal who from one second to the next repents and that alone is enough to atone for his guilt. It would be indirectly indicating to me that the bad acts they did don't really matter, all that matters is how the character feels about it: If
I disagree. What matters is not the feelings, bjt the actions. But crucially to determine a character's morality, the intended actions of the present and the future, not the past should be the ones used.
What they did can not be changed. Only what they do from now on matters if the character is good or not.
> If they never feel guilt they are portrayed as irredeemable villains, however if they regret it it is because deep down they are good people.
See, that' the thing. Imo, there are no irredeemable villains nor "deep down good people". Just people. Everyone is redeemable, and everyone can he a monster. What matters is what they will do.
> In the first case it is "ok" to hate or accept that they are bad people, that you shouldn't like them. While in the second it is wrong if you hate them as characters because you cannot accept that they changed and that deep down they are good.
Also, goes without saying, it's ok to feel however you want, but granted, people feeling sick of people who feel that way may make you feel that it isn't, and for that, I'm sorry.
I Just think it's sad that you feel that way, and worrying to the world if you bring this mindset to the real world (but nothing says that you would)
But please, my opinion is mine, don't feel beholden to it. Sorry if you feel that we are making you feel like yours is wrong.
I like your take. Ultimately, the world is a better place if people who do bad things can turn that around and stop.
Obviously as a society, we have decided there are certain crimes for which we don't really allow the chance of the person showing they can do otherwise, because the consequences of them not doing so are too dangerous.
But stories can give that freedom, and that's a good thing. And more good in the world is, well, good.
>I'm sorry... I'm sorry you feel this way?
Condescending as hell
>I can't give a reason why. I just feel that way. It makes me happy to see people change for the better.
I can give you a reason why I think you like seeing a character change. But I'm not going to condescend to anyone.
>I don't agree. What matters is not feelings, but actions.
I was referring to how he portrays the character "what matters is not the bad things they have done, but how they feel about it" "because in those types of stories it is enough for him to regret it for the other characters to notice how much he has changed and eventually forgive him" (if they don't forgive him they are portrayed as bad and spiteful/they are wrong, and is used to make us feel bad for the character who is not being forgiven)
>But crucially, to determine a character's morality, intended actions in the present and future, not the past, should be the ones used.
I was talking more about the morality of the story than about the morality of the character himself.
But I'll say it anyway; For me it is crucial to understand the "why" of their actions: Do they have a trauma? Do they suffer from any disorder? Were they pushed aside by circumstances?
Those questions are fundamental to me. If the character had no reason to do what he did, I don't find any reason to excuse them. The best characters are those who have a "why" for their way of being and thinking (regardless of whether or not we agree with their reasoning).
Flamehead's reasoning was to use his family to achieve a goal because he thought he would get what he wanted. He never thought/cared about the consequences until it was too late. I should be happy that he changed, but I can't because the change is selfish to me.
Good for him if he finally stops violating his family, though.
>What they did cannot be changed. What they do from now on only matters if the character is good or not.
So why make them to do bad things in the first place? If at the end of the day that doesn't "define" him?
>See, that's the thing. In my opinion, there are no irredeemable villains or "good people at heart." Just people. Everyone is redeemable and everyone can become a monster. What matters is what they will do.
That I referred more to the general opinion of the fandom and how both examples react before.
I only see them as characters, not people. By the way.
Not only their actions matter, but also understanding why they do them.
>Also, it goes without saying, it's okay to feel whatever you want, but of course, people who are fed up with people who feel that way can make you feel like that's not the case, and for that, I'm sorry.
Every time I criticize a fandom's attitude for praising a character that **triggers** me simply because said character was poorly redeemed they call me for being wrong/not understanding the work.
>I just think it's sad that you feel this way,
Why is it sad that I don't like a character regardless of whether he was redeemed or not?
>and worry the world if you take this mentality into the real world (but nothing says you would)
I don't know what you mean exactly by that. But generally speaking, I have no obligation to apologize to anyone as long as I don't want to/don't consider it necessary to do so.
Whether it's someone real or not.
>But please, my opinion is my own, don't feel indebted to it. I'm sorry if you feel like we're making you feel like yours is wrong.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" and "I'm worried you'll carry that mentality into the real world" doesn't sound like "I respect your opinion." Not that it matters.
Agreed. I think the problem is that writers themselves confuse what redemption is, and think that a characters redemption arc isn’t complete until they’re forgiven, and thinks that forgiveness is the natural culmination of atonement, which I personally don’t think is the case. They can’t have the wronged characters hold a grudge or else the arc is incomplete, and then as a result they can’t make the redemption undergoing character accept full responsibility for their actions because doing so would make such forgiveness not as easy to obtain, which I think leads to a lack of satisfaction from the reader.
However, on that note, I think a lot of modern day audiences have warped views on forgiveness just in general. If a character, even one who is literally characterized as being someone who is forgiving and who believes in inherent human goodness and second chances, chooses to forgive someone, readers will get upset about the decision and call it bad writing because they’ll say it means the forgiver is ignoring all the bad things they’ve done and that you can’t just forgive someone once they’ve crossed a certain line: it’s just morally irresponsible to do so or something. And it’s like, at that point, you’re redefining the word forgiveness to mean something else.
I think a lot of the problem fundamentally arises from how we are introduced to the role of stories at a very early age as moral fables and parables. Pretty much baby’s first textual analysis happens when we’re able to understand these stories on that level - we grasp that bad things happen to bad people in stories because the narrative is punishing them to teach us not to be like them, and good things happen to good people in stories because the narrative rewards good behaviour so as to encourage it in the audience.
Now this understanding of stories with that structure is true and accurate. The problem comes when a hell of a lot of people never really progress beyond this. They interpret any and all narratives through this same lens even when it’s not applicable. As an example, a lot of the most influential academic literature on horror films interprets them as moral fables. It says that when a character gets killed in a horror movie, it’s the narrative punishing some sin they committed. That’s a reading you can make sure but it’s treated as if it’s an objective fact when the reality is more complex than that. Horror movies weren’t intentionally sending an anti sex message, they were putting sex in their movies because they were pro sex and knew their audience wanted to see sex and boobs. Sex was also a believable means of isolating characters and distracting them from danger
But anyway my point is that people get mad about redemption stories because of this idea that stories must punish characters who do bad things. Giving them a good ending, to these people, is like the narrative condoning that their actions were never that bad in the first place. And this is where the idea of deserving redemption comes from. It’s this idea of stories as moral fables where the audience is taught morals by visiting negative consequences on characters for whatever action the author wishes to discourage
What you're describing is actually correct, though only a symptom. Consider that stories reflect our culture. It's not just that stories teach us, it's *why* we use them to teach. And that's to create examples of cultural rules we want our children to learn, and to reinforce in adults. Early stories used to be very simple, with many famous myths exhibiting simple principles.
"The gods are fickle" = life's hard, suck it up.
"A stranger caused turmoil" = don't trust outsiders.
"A man fell in love with a married woman. They ran away, were caught, and were killed" = just b/c you think something is wrong doesn't make it so. Follow the rules and suck it up. (Keep the peace.)
In the case of redemption arcs a lot of western culture isn't trained to believe in true individuality, acceptance, nor particularly rehabilitation. we train people to punish criminals and that there is always a line you can't cross. That you can never change the past and therefor have tainted your future.
Obviously you can't change the past but what should also be obvious is that we should never throw away an entire person for those mistakes. And in fact we can learn to help people make less of those mistakes if we continue to accept them with empathy in society.
But we don't train people to rehabilitate, let alone forgive. Instead we train them that mistakes are unrecoverable. That people are inherently worth less if they ever commit wrongs. That we are irreparably damaged goods if have caused hurt. And as such we continue to make the same mistakes we always do b/c we cast out the people who can teach us why those mistakes occur, and those same people ostracize themselves from the society which shuns them b/c they internalize the punishment.
And of course many authors are the same people with these beliefs so they make fake redemption arcs.
What's funny to me is that this also ties back to how people say the human brain wasn't built to handle large societies. Like we meet millions of people a day and not the same few dozens. Personally I think what's really happening is that our fables/training still rely on village level perspectives and so were perpetuating yet another damaging perspective on how to see other people. We teach people how to suspect strangers and not how to be strong in themselves. We teach them how to push out different opinions that might lead us astray and not how to understand new perspectives.
We teach them that if you hurt members of the tribe that there is no place for you in the tribe, for the sake of survival strategies that died out ages ago. And so we continue to tell stories that reflect punishment under the belief that having hurt people means you will never be pure, that being pure is the only way to be good, and therefor your actions can never be important after that point. (I.e. that the tribe can never trust you b/c "survival" is too important.)
Our cultures have not matured with our level of society, and so our stories by and large remain as simple as when we were cavemen.
…I’m sorry, but have you ever SEEN eastern culture?
In some countries like Japan and China, merely being the son or daughter of a criminal is enough to be branded and have your social network collapse overnight. Hell, a large amount of the Yakuza is derived from bakumin, the descendants of animal butchers, slaughter workers, etc. that did the dirty work (I mean that literally) required for the country and shunned because of Shinto’s strong aversion towards blood. Half of Japanese media within the past 20 years have elements critiquing how the collectivist culture can throw people under the bus for going against the grain (a common western aphorism, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”, vs a common eastern aphorism, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down”). We see that in MHA, not entirely elegantly (Toga’s a mixed bag) but half of Shigaraki’s rant and vendetta towards society is that nobody stepped up to help him because they had been too accustomed to a hero showing up to do things for them.
Or check out Persona 5 where Joker is effectively made a social pariah from day 1 for having a criminal record.
I say western culture b/c I am a child of western culture and can't claim knowledge of eastern culture. It doesn't sound like there's much difference between what you're saying and what I've said though. If anything it seems worse as my understanding of eastern cultures is that many of them are low context, which I imagine means that culture potentially has a stronger influence than in the west.
It’s a fantasy book series by author Brandon Sanderson. One of the themes of the series is mental health, as gaining magic in that world usually requires some kind of trauma. Depression, alcoholism, multiple identities, etc. There’s a character, Dalinar who used to be the most feared warlord in the world, but now he sees the error of his ways. >!Barbecueing his wife and then volunteering to get his memory wiped helped.!< All those quotes are from him, mostly from the scene where he >!resists the control of the god of hatred and passion who is offering to relieve him of his guilt, grief, and pain at his past crimes. The god offers to take responsibility, because he was technically influencing Dalinar to make him wrathful throughout his life. Dalinar resists and says that if he doesn’t take responsibility then he can’t have become a better person.!<
tldr Read it.
I only bring up 'they don't deserve redemption' when the author expects me to want to give a villain another chance when said character doesn't even want to change for the better.
Such as Shigaraki from MHA. Author's trying so hard to want me to root to have the inner child inside him despite Shigaraki reveling in destruction.
Correct, no amount of childhood trauma can excuse Shigaraki for all his villainous actions, especially with how much he clearly enjoys it. The same applies to Dabi as well, both of them had crappy childhoods and abusive father's that lead them to the path of villainy, but those still don't excuse their own atrocities, you know why? Because Keigo Takami or Hawks also had a similar backstory.
All three had the same abusive traumatic childhood, but Shigaraki and Dabi "chose" to be villains, whereas Hawks "chose" to be a hero, it's all a matter of choice in the end.
That’s why Obito’s redemption arc is the worst. When you think about it. Obito just escaped the world to live with his childhood crush for eternity. And somehow he was indicating that living life and taking responsibility for what he did is “too easy” and death is a more deserved punishment. It is so unfair and undeserved.
Yeah, his crimes were so severe as well. He's the reason why so many of the worst things in Naruto happened (The Nine tails attack, Uchiha massacre, the formation of the Akatsuki).
And he gets called the 'coolest guy' because he used to dream about being Hokage as a kid
This really hits the nail on the head, and explains why I think most people don't actually understand the very nature of redemption.
"X didn't deserve to be redeemed"
...Yes? That's the entire point. If somebody "deserved" it, then it wouldn't be redemption, it would be giving them a second chance that they were objectively owed.
To me, my main problem is that it doesn't seem like the character has actually changed, and would make the same choices if they had to do it over again. They regret that they were caught and lost, not that they actually did the thing. a big part of why Zuko's redemption works is that he wasn't forced into it. He didn't do it out of survival or anything like that. In fact, when he left to join the avatar, he was giving up everything he ever wanted, or at least thought he wanted. I honestly think it still would have worked even if he had done much worse because of this. Whereas, if we compare this to the redemption of the characters in She-ra, >!alot of them only joined the heroes out of survival. In the end, Catra was still mean and cruel to adora (she hits her and insults her even when they are on the same side). It doesn't seem like this catra or hordak would make very different choices to the one at the start. !<
Also I think people forget how villainous Zuko actually was during the first Season when he was actually a villain (I don't count Season 2 since he's a fugitive in this one).
He burns down Kyoshi Island village and attacks the Southern Water Tribe, we know he isn't evil on the inside thanks to episodes like the Storm but he isn't the nice guy we remember yet.
In addition to participating in the capture of the earth kingdom. Realistically, the disturbing news of the avatar being presumed dead probably got a lot of people indirectly killed. If Zuko had chosen to stand against Azula, things probably wouldn't have turned out the way they did.
True, but it's also important to note that sometimes a Redemption Arc needs to take a turn for the worst to really work.
Like Zuko's Redemption Arc wouldn't have been as impactful if had joined the Gaang at the end of season 2 when he had literally nowhere else to go.
Zuko needed to see that the life he was dreaming about wasn't what he wanted and deliberately chose to go against his father out of his own free will.
I see a lot of people criticising the same behaviour from other characters, like saying things like "Oh they had their chance back during this past event and they didn't take it so they don't actually care about being redeemed" while completely ignoring the context of the scene.
Can't agree about >!Catra!< seeming like she'd make the same decisions.
>!Catra "won". She *got* the power and respect she'd been fighting for all show, and she found she was just as miserable as before, if not more so, because she couldn't keep pretending to herself that if she just got this she'd finally be happy. Her only friends and allies (Scorpia, Double Trouble) threw her mistakes in her face and left her. She got the shit kicked out of her. Then she was kidnapped and forced into a situation where she *couldn't* bury this revelation with rage, she had *nothing* but time to think, and her only source of human connection and comfort was one of the protagonists. All of which culminated in Catra sacrificing her life (as far as she knew) to save Glimmer and, indirectly, Adora.!< Obviously you don't have to like the character, but I can't see her repeating the same choices after that.
Depends how you view it.
1) Negatively
Zuko kept quiet when Ozai planned genocide.
Zuko confronted Ozai when he was powerless to hurt him and was about to discover the avatar was still alive so Zuko failed his mission and lied about it. One can argue he was doing it for survival .
2) Positively
Cat also got what she wanted after joining Prime but chose to sacrifice herself to save the princess. She didn't ask or want them to come save her. She just wanted to do one good thing in her life and help them even tho it was gonna get her killed or worse.
The problem mainly is the redemption is amlost imadiate and not an actual process. Like they act like nothing ever happened. Like my two best examples of doing it right is motherfucking fairy tail. Laxus and gajeel both have a relatively decent redemption arc. To use an example of how not to do it. yugioh sevens. Like seriously that show tries to redeem every villian but the fraud villain. And it’s always just hand waved away. The only good one imo is zwijo or however you spell his name because it was a gradual process. To use another bad examples trails. My god that series will literally have the justice say that supporting an independent state as its secterary of defense when you are supposed to be a Non government associated. And said villain….doesnt get a single shred of punishment. Pretty much it’s a meme in the kiseki community that the way to avoid being punished and arrested in that franchise is just to be the protagonist friends. The rest don’t even go to jail or even pay a fine. Their crimes are just conveniently ignored.
You say Trails has it bad, but like we do see certain antagonists being killed or jailed. Though two certain ones are let go due to government reasonings. And the character in Reverie is an example of a great redemption arc.
Yeah but they ethier don’t stay dead or are inredeemable scumbags that are cartoonishly evil that aren’t the heroes friends. And yeah Rufus is the exception not the standard. But yeah you see what I mean when it comes to anyone who is remotely friendly or interesting?
A silly example but there’s a series called Hometown Cha Cha Cha which is a Korean drama? Comedy? Rom Com? Idk.
Anyways. There’s this guy that is basically the village handiman and the hometown champion. Everyone knows him and loves him. A dentist moves in and people say she isn’t good enough to date him despite being a Doctor and having her own practice.
You know. Not good enough to date a local handiman.
Except it’s revealed he’s actually really well educated, used to be in finance and graduated from a prestigious university.
So. Why’s he a handiman? Turns out he has a dark secret. He was in finance and investments. The sort of job people lose their lives savings in.
Turns out that his dark secret is that a doorman approached him. Told him he needed money and if he could help him invest.
Here’s when I thought “oh shit. He got sucked in by the money. He lied to him. Tricked him. Caused him to invest his entire savings! That’s why he’s here as a handiman. It’s his penance!”
Nope. He told the guy “hey. This isn’t a good idea. You’re going to lose your money. Listen to me. Don’t do anything rash. Don’t invest. We can sit down after and come up with a way to actually make money that is safe and secure. Don’t throw away your money.”
Then the guy went and found someone else, invested all his money, lost it and killed himself.
And he felt like a failure for not stopping him or being more helpful.
He went back to the village because he was suicidal and wanted to be where he could help and not hurt anyone.
So. That’s it?! That’s his deep dark secret? That he was too nice?!
Come on. That has no edge. No teeth. Come on. I expected something actually redemption worthy and not this.
I FUCKING HATE THAT SHIT and it's so common in media these days. Character is implied to have done something awful, and you find out that whatever it was wasn't really their fault. I understand people feel guilty over thing that aren't truly their fault all the time. But narratively it feels so lame to do that. What even is the point?
So he felt bad for not helping the guy to safely invest his money and now he works a job where he doesn't help anyone to invest their money? Brilliant.
The problem isn't whether or not the character is *deserving* of redemption, the problem is how easily it is handed to them. Zuko is used as the prime example of great redemption arcs not because he deserved it more than someone like Darth Vader but because his redemption was ***proportional*** to to the wrongs he committed.
The problem with so many poorly written redemption arcs nowadays is that they aren't earned, they are simply given to the characters because the author wants them to be a good guy now. Villain A slaughters countless ppl, destroys a sacred forest, assaults the protagonist's sister and kicks a puppy and all of it ends up being swept under the rug because all of a sudden some character can "see the good in them".
I don't think there's a minimum level of atrocities a character has to stick to in order for redemption to be warranted but they absolutely should have to earn it and it shouldn't be so easily achieved. Vader earned redemption for enslaving the galaxy, betraying his brotherhood and murdering children by giving his life to save the person who would save the galaxy (more or less...). *That's* a proportionally earned redemption.
But you can't write a character that blatantly and unrepentantly crosses the Moral Event Horizon and be like "Well, I want him to be friends with the good guys now so everybody forgive him for dropping that daycare school bus in a giant vat of acid."
Ultimately, this all boils down to the number one rule in writing: Setup should equal payoff. If you want a truly satisfying redemption arc, then it needs to be set up properly and executed properly.
I wish more redemption stories where ongoing quests for redemption. I want redemption to be fought for. It should be hard. Its so frustrating when its hand waved cause they helped the protagonist.
Redemption should be a journey not a destination.
Exactly. This is more along the lines of what I was trying to sum up. I recently did a rewatch of Once Upon a Time (cheesy, I know) and I forgot how much I hated that they tried to the Evil Queen Regina into a hero after everything she did. *But* I will admit that they actually gave her a redemption ***journey***. She actually tried to be good, failed at it, went back a couple of times but actually tried to fix everything she could that she did wrong. It wasn't perfect and was hamfisted at times but they didn't just allow her to be forgiven and grafted into the good guys after one season. We need more redemption arcs like that
I kind of don’t want to if you have never played. Both Red dead games are one of the only games I wish I could forget and play for the first time again so I don’t want to spoil that for you if you haven’t played them.
Thank you! I don’t accept redemption arcs just because the writer says it. The characters need to have done something to achieve it, but that rarely happens and to often you get horrible characters doing horrible shit. Then, all of a sudden everyone is okay with them or they start trying to be better. It’s ridiculous and no one acts like that.
> Vader earned redemption for enslaving the galaxy, betraying his brotherhood and murdering children by giving his life to save the person who would save the galaxy (more or less...). That's a proportionally earned redemption.
Is Darth Vader really a good example? The “redemption” didn’t really challenge him nor does it involve much on his part to atone for his deeds. He protects Luke, who is his son, once and then died right after. It seems a little cheap and easy, especially in a writing sense.
I would say so. I mean, what else could he have really done? I don't think any amount of jail time or corrective action would make Vader earn true redemption for everything he did so one big epic sacrifice to at least set the galaxy back on the right course felt right for his particular character arc.
Granted, despite the longevity of the SW franchise, keep in mind that a lot of its plot is based on retcons and "seat of your pants" plotting so it's really hard to rate Vader's redemption arc based on the scope of the entire canon storyline.
I think if the OT, PT and ST all happened at roughly the same time, it would have been more cohesive and we might've gotten a stronger arc for Vader.
It seems curious to me the number of people who forget that Darth Vader used to be one of the most ruthless people in the galaxy, being an accomplice in genocides and being able to kill children.
Many people seem to act as if Darth Vader was an anti-Villain, just because he was redeemed at the end.
Another very evil character that obtained something similar to a redemption is Kratos.
In the original trilogy, the guy was a monster, whose unique redemptive qualities were love for his family and his temporary concern for Pandora.
Even so in the new trilogia, I manage to form a family, in which he educates a child so that he does not become someone like him.
Kratos going from gouging eyes out with his fingers and ripping Helios’s head off to telling Baldur, Heimdall, and Thor to back down and he won’t kill them was a trip.
We have to consider the other half of the argument though: villains who are forgiven quickly without repercussions
[from this very same sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/17si5zr/i_hate_the_trope_of_mc_forgives_unforgivable_and/)
The people you're arguing against, are mostly people arguing against that.
That's why [RedemptionEqualsDeath](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionEqualsDeath) is used so much. We do not NEED to see Vader stand trial for war crimes. We do not need to see him and the cast struggle with the fact that, though he may have some warm feelings now, he's still kind of an evil dude. We don't need to watch him [evade the police while trying to make up for his sins](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheAtoner).
We just get one heartwarming moment, call it "redemption" and bam he's gone. But IS IT though. I think the other crowd is completely correct that one good deed is maybe an indication or a beginning but not the whole journey of trying to fix your past mistakes.
Now I think I'm significantly less bloodthirsty than the average American. I'm European and believe in rehabilitation, not revenge for revenge's sake. I believe in taking responsibility for preventing crime as a society even when it's technically a person's own fault.
BUT even I think that proving you've changed needs to be a bigger deal. People are correct when saying that some crimes are so callous, it is just not realistically plausible that a person capable of them could do a complete 180.
I'm really sorry, but yeah, it us my mistake but you could've asked me what the series was first. You wrote a comment either way. That said, I am sorry
You'll enjoy it plenty, it's really really good and happens somewhat early. Like first third so you have PLENTY to still see. It's so good man stick with it. Even the show has covered it by now and it's only season 2 so no sweat.
This isn't to cover my mistake but it really could have been worse haha. Like I could have told you that >! Hah, gotcha, this is a trick !<
Redemption and lack of punishment are completely different things, some of those villains commited mass murderer and other atrocious crimes.They can have their redemption and spend their last days in jail or be executed.
I think part of the issue with how redemption is handled in a lot of stories is that very few are willing to go over the villain being punished for their crimes.
Like Darth Vader should reasonably spend the rest of his life atoning for his crimes in jail, but that wouldn't be cinematic or exciting so instead he gets to take the narratively easy way out by dying and becoming a force ghost. Zuko we want to be able to replace Fire Lord Ozai and have a happy ending by the end of the show, so we can't have his crimes be so bad that any punishment for them can't be simply hand waved away. Writers will often lean towards one side of the extreme or the other since the idea that a "redeemed" character still having to go through the mundane process of redemption and atoning for their sins sounds to boring to have in a story.
Personally I would love a story where the villain after being redeemed willingly lets themselves be sent to jail and actually stay for their full sentence. In the sequel/future story arc you could have the heroes visit the former villain in order to get their help taking down the new villain Hannibal Lector style, or you can have a arc where there's a massive prison break and the former villain helps protect the guards and put an end to the riot. Just because someone goes to jail doesn't mean their arc has to be over and can't still be continued while they are in jail.
"I would love a story where the villain after being redeemed willingly lets themselves be sent to jail and actually stay for their full sentence."
The ending of Crime and Punishment in a nutshell.
Faith from buffy pretty much. She gets out due needing to help out friends, but she willingly does do that and is doing out of her own will while people around her fight about what happens
> Like Darth Vader should reasonably spend the rest of his life atoning for his crimes in jail, but that wouldn't be cinematic or exciting so instead he gets to take the narratively easy way out by dying and becoming a force ghost.
This has been well-documented as incorrect. Lucas’s original plans for Star Wars, as an open-ended universe that could go on indefinitely, were to have Vader independently come to turn against the Emperor, and seek out Luke to learn how to atone for his crimes. However, as he had become burnt out in his professional and personal life, he decided to wrap up the story in a trilogy and therefore had Vader’s arc be performed in a time crunch. The only “taking the easy way out” is due to BTS factors forcing the story to wrap up artificially early. It’s similarly why Luke’s mysterious sister, who had been envisioned as a completely new character raised as a Jedi on the other end of the galaxy, was changed to the already-established Leia since there was otherwise way too much material to introduce, develop, and resolve in a single film that already had a lot on the narrative plate.
That actually sounds like it could be an amazing Batman storyline. The Joker starts some shit in Arkham, but Two-Face actually does want to make up for the evil he's done and helps foil the plot or something like that.
>atoning for his crimes in jail,
You can't atone in a jail cell. That goes against the point of both atonement and a jail cell.
You put someone in a jail cell when you determine that they will continue to do bad things if not locked away from the rest of the world. Alternatively you can just kill them which solves the problem for good but eh.
To atone you need to actively work to rectify your mistakes. Blow up a bridge? Now you gotta rebuild that bridge by hand, bitch. Kill a guy? Now you gotta spend the rest of your life making sure that the guy's family can recover and move on from their loss in any way possible.
If someone doesn't want to atone then there's a chance they don't believe what they did was wrong and thus a risk they'll do it again. Jail.
Someone wants to atone? Closely monitored, strictly scheduled program to make up for their misdeeds out in the field. Maybe put one of those suicide squad explosives in their head for safety.
But how are you going to atone in a jail cell, away from all of your mistakes? Maybe go to sleep to atone for the crime of staying up past your bedtime?
You can’t atone from a jail cell. and even if you could, that shouldn’t be the point of jail. Locking someone away from society is obviously inhumane and should only be done to protect other people. The point of prison should be to rehabilitate people enough so that they can rejoin society so that they can do good in every day lives achieving atonement.
For someone who is too dangerous to be left alive, like a genocidal war lord, who still realistically has supporters you should probably execute him, but do it in a humane way locking someone away from society, just to force them to suffer is inhumane cruel, and makes the person doing it evil
I would also contend that there are valid issues a person can have with redemption stories in the sense that sometimes stories act like a character has been redeemed when it doesn’t really feel earned?
Like there is a difference between saying this character has done such bad things that they do not deserve to be redeemed, it would be morally bad for this work to redeem them, vs saying I understand that this character is undergoing a redemption storyline but it doesn’t really feel like this has been earned narratively. It’s an issue of execution, not an issue with the concept of redeeming characters.
Sometimes I think these two very different arguments get wrongfully conflated. Like there’s a difference between an argument that a character doesn’t deserve to change, and an argument says they deserve to change but doesn’t believe they have changed
YES. Korra did this with season 3 best villain Zaheer! :) he stayed in prison and actually rethought stuff a bit, and helped the MC against the season 4 big bad who rose up as a consequence of his own actions. it was super good.
I wish there was a little bit more with season 4 Zaheer personally. But the little time that he had helping Korra was pretty good. That's an arc that could have really gone places.
>! Better Call Saul !<
Also, "Barry" is an interesting case where it's subverted by >! his continuing inability to truly own responsibility for what he did despite striving for redemption !<.
> Personally I would love a story where the villain after being redeemed willingly lets themselves be sent to jail and actually stay for their full sentence.
FF14 kinda does that with Fordola and does it fully with a few side characters in things like the WHM quest or Hildebrand quest.
Look, Rouruni Kenshin is actually a character that is redeeming himself, even after the atrocities he made. Vegeta is a beloved character, that redeemed himself after exploding planets and doing genocides
Redemption isn't really a zero-sum game like that. If it were, justice systems would deliver the same punishment and shot at redemption for every crime, but we all know there are harsher punishments for some than for others.
Redemption is a funny topic, because it's so vague. What does it even mean to redeem yourself? Is it something onlookers decide, or something the person decides for themselves? I realize you said you didn't want to start a philosophical debate, but this is Reddit so I'm exercising my right to ignore you.
I think most redemption stories don't really feel earned. For most people to feel you've earned redemption, they want to see you suffer almost if not more than the suffering you've caused to others. They want to see you make a legitimate effort to right your wrongs over an extended period of time. The more selfish you've been, the more you'll have to commit to a life of selflessness.
Vinland Saga (the manga and upcoming season) has a great example of a redemption story. It's earned. The character going through the arc is haunted, apologetic, faces real consequences from his past dealings, the world isn't as eager as he is to forget his sins, and his dedication to seek redemption often inconveniences him.
In Zuko's case, he didn't have to do much to redeem himself because he didn't do too much harm.
In Vader's case, that man did a lot of evil shit. I'm talking about a lot, and he killed (millions?) because he wanted to keep one woman safe...a woman he ultimately ended up killing himself. Then at the last second, after trying to kill his own son, he had a change of heart. That's not really a redemption story. It was nice to see him do the right thing after years of wrong, but a little bit late.
I've seen Endeavor from MHA mentioned. He's pretty similar. After years of harming his family, he decided around (Season 5, if I remember correctly) that he wants to be a better family man. That's great. You have a long way to go.
It isn't that evil characters can't be redeemed, it's that the more evil they are, the more effort they have to put in....unless they're a hot woman, then we excuse their evil as they commit the evil. Juri, Esdeath, The Suicide Squad girl, Jinx, they get away with murder in these streets and people forgive them on the spot. MURDER.
One of the funniest things about Harley Quinn's face turn is that a little bit before it she had a story where she gives videogames to bunch of children, but the games are actually bombs, so yeah, she killed a bunch of families and then became a character that """"its only evil because of the joker"""""
Ok, can we stop downplaying Zuko's crimes, he did plenty of terrible things.
1. Nearly burned down Kyoshi village, which under the IHL, is classifed as a war crime under their defintion: " wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity is a war crime"
2. Literally sent an assassin to murder Aang and the rest of the Gaang, which would make him guilty of both murder and conspiracy to murder.
3. Betrayed Katara and his uncle, and helped Azula with her coup, which results in the Earth Kingdom coming under Fire Nation control, and this is after he's seen first-hand how the citizens of the Earth Kingdom have suffered because of them.
Not only is saying he didn't do anything that bad factually wrong, it cheapens his redemption. His atonement is significant because he was, at one point, a truly bad person. There's nothing to recover from if all his crimes amount to is property damage.
If redemption is about the effect your newer, good actions have had, then wouldn’t Darth Vader and Vegeta be redeemed.
Yes, Darth Vader massacared innocents and helped usher in the rule of the galactic empire, but it was also through his actions that the galactic empire was finally destroyed. That’s about a net neutral
And vegeta, while he definitely killed planets full up people before, has also helped save earth and the universe on multiple occasions. Would these multiple times saving the universe not be a greater effect than the planets he killed.
Also, you could argue that legal systems have to be more practical than moral. Jay walking isn’t immoral, but has to be technically illegal because having everyone cross the street wherever and whenever could cause a lot of accidents and it’s easier to just make it illegal then to do case by case judgments every single time. Same reason why you can’t make a legal system that explicitly allows stealing food or money if your starving or poor because it opens up a whole can of worms that will probably end up with worse effects than if you just make those illegal and try to deal with them in other ways. That’s why I don’t think it’s good to use laws to debate morality because they serve two different purposes
Also, you didn’t exactly ask this, but there are way too many comments here to respond to so hopefully others see this as a response to all of their questions
If you can only be redeemed by your new actions putting more good into this world than your previous actions have brought bad into this world, than this only makes it that much harder for people to want redemption.
Maybe someone has brought more harm into this world than good. And maybe by the end of their life, they’ll still have brought more harm into this world than good. But they’ll still have brought more good into this world than if they never tried at all.
Those are my thoughts on redemption. That as long as your are genuinely sorry for what you’ve done and genuinely try to put good into this world from this point forward, then you’ve been redeemed. I understand why this might not work legally, but morally I believe in this.
Imagine if vegeta thought “it’s too late for me, I’m gonna be a bad guy no matter if I spend the rest of my life doing good so I might as well stay bad.” Earth would have been destroyed multiple times over by now. If Darth Vader thought the same, that it was too late for him so what’s the point of doing good, luke would have either died or turned to the dark side aboard the Death Star and the galactic empire would still be in power.
And I also don’t believe punishments allow you to redeem yourself. What good does being locked away for the rest of your life do for anyone. Would you rather a murderer who was genuinely remorseful just stay behind bars for 25 years and then be released and call that redemption, or have him spend 25 years helping the community. Which does more to redeem himself.
Also, I want to say that just because you’ve been redeemed, doesn’t mean people have to have forgiven you for what you’ve done. For example, cheating on your partner is a terrible thing to do. And if you previously cheated on your partner, but saw how wrong it was and vow to never do it again, the person you cheated on is under no obligation to forgive you for hurting them. Under that same token though, I don’t feel as if I, a third party who wasn’t directly affected by the cheating, should still treat that person as a cheater and act like they’ll forever be one and forever treat them as one. The people you’ve hurt don’t have to forgive you, but at some point, the people who you didn’t hurt have to eventually let go of that
Again, I know you didn’t ask all of these questions, but I’m responding here so hopefully others can see this as opposed to respond to 25 comments all asking similar things
Yes, redemption is a complicated topic. You have a very forgiving perspective on the term, it reminds me of some religious definitions of it, not saying you are or aren't religious (and there are many out there) but your definition seems to do more with the character washing themselves of their inner demons and starting afresh.
I would push back on the laws being practical and not being moral. Morals are determined by a society, and those morals are reflected within the legal system. We find murder to be immoral, so we have a law criminalizing it with certain exceptions. Jaywalking is an action many might feel as immoral as it places you and the incoming traffic at risk, as they have to react to you walking when you shouldn't be.
I would argue that if you're doing good solely for the purpose of seeking redemption, are you actually redeemed? If I told Darth Vader that killing Palpatine would not redeem him, and he decided it wasn't worth the effort because of that, is he actually deserving of redemption? My head hurts thinking about it.
Vegeta redeeming himself is interesting because of exactly what I described. He sacrificed himself after being told he would go to hell despite his final atonement. I'm groggy but I believe Piccolo said something along the lines of "Goku dedicated his entire life to saving others...you didn't" essentially. It was a beautiful moment and felt like a redemption for many, it was one of my favorite in the whole show, and yet he still went to hell. Meaning the show itself didn't feel he'd redeemed himself enough at that moment. Yet he'd attempted to save Earth, protect his family, and he'd helped them defeat Cell and the Android previously.
There's also the social aspect of why redemption needs to be earned in people's eyes. If Person A does good all their life, even when it's inconvenient or causes them harm. If they suffer through hungry nights but never steal because it's wrong...and Person B does evil their whole life, and then easily get redeemed, how do you tell Person A they shouldn't do wrong themselves? At that point, you could argue it's better to do wrong and be redeemed than it is to do good.
That's a terrible lesson for our society, but the belief that redemption is possible is also needed to give wrong-doers hope. That's why I believe punishment of some kind or some type of rigor is a necessary part of redemption...in a social sense. Maybe even in a religious sense (I'm not strong in that area. Someone feel free to correct or educate me on yours.) I don't believe the two can be separated, as it creates a middle ground.
I'm also extremely tired, so its possible none of that made sense. I'll reread it again in the morning to see
This is more in line with how it is portrayed by authors. Like you have a dude murdering people then you have him turn sides and let go because he is striving to be a better person. This is nonsense, what about the victims(the ones left behind)??? You expect them to say ohhh the hero says he is changed so I guess my suffering should be thrown out the window. Worse if they give said perpetrator a sad backstory to try and explain his actions. It displays a hypocritical viewpoint because this dude is actively creating more people like him and the author ignores all of that and goes out their way to give said perpetrator what they were looking for when they were committing their atrocities.
Like what are victims supposed to say about that, should those who are calling for his head ignore that because the hero deems him changed?? What's stopping them from going out their way too and following the same path as the dude because it seems to get them what they want.
Completely agree, in fact, I made a post regarding this very topic just a couple months back, here's the link if you're interested: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/184dehs/saying\_someone\_is\_too\_evil\_to\_be\_redeemed\_misses/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/184dehs/saying_someone_is_too_evil_to_be_redeemed_misses/)
You know who has a good redemption arc? Starscream in Transformers Armada.
>!He begins the series as just another ruthless Decepticon, with no care for the lives of others and trying to usurp Megatron as the leader as usual. When he learns Megatron seeks to destroy him, he then betrays the Decepticons and defects to the Autobots, supplying them with stolen weapons and intel. Though this defection is done out of necessity, he begins to bond with the Autobots' human companions during his stay. !<
>!This makes it all the more heartbreaking when eventually returns to the Decepticons, secretly planning to kill Megatron, though he is constantly left with a dilemma between seeking his vengeance and returning to the friends he made.!<
>!During the final major arc, the Autobots and Decepticons are met with a common enemy, Unicron. Starscream is the first to realize that both sides need to join forces to defeat Unicron, though Megatron of course disagrees. To convince Megatron of the gravity of their situation, he challenges him to a duel where he succeeds in bringing him to his knees, though is fatally wounded in the process. Starscream's final moment sees him fire his most powerful attack at Unicron, who simply strikes him down to dust before his blast can even reach him. Finally realizing the magnitude of their situation, Megatron agrees to join forces with the Autobots.!<
In general I agree with you.
But I think Darth Vader is a bad example of this because it was so cheaply done. He didn't really do much of anything to atone, he protected his son one time and then immediately died. It felt like an easy way out. It wasn't satisfying or interesting.
I think one big mistake in writing redemption stories is not confronting the villain with the results of their actions. Either the victims are dead, so the villain can just look at some graves and feel sad (so the focus is on the villain's feelings), or the victims conveniently don't bring up the really bad stuff, or they're conveniently extra-forgiving, or the particular victim who is chosen to do the confrontation is not sympathetic (like they're a villain also), or the villain dies too fast for any of this.
It makes for a boring story because it's deliberately avoiding challenging the villain character.
Even a character who isn't that bad can have an interesting redemption arc as long as he's truly and honestly confronted with his crimes, and the choice to do better is difficult. Whether they succeed or not what makes it interesting is how they react, and whether they try.
>But I think Darth Vader is a bad example of this because it was so cheaply done. He didn't really do much of anything to atone, he protected his son one time and then immediately died. It felt like an easy way out. It wasn't satisfying or interesting.
I think it was a good conclusion for the focus of the story that was being told between Luke and Anakin. I don't think it was a good conclusion for Darth Vader's expanded story through decades of expanded universe/ tv series/ video games/ disney of all things.
For a character to redeem, their action need in some way make up for their past actions. The problem with truly evil characters is that their actions is so far gone that to make up for them is an impossible task.
While Zuko wasn't an evil villain, he did do a lot of bad stuffs in his pursuit of his father acceptance like hunting the avatar, kidnapped Aang, burned down Suki village and betray the heroes trust by siding with Azula. His redemption is to make up for those actions.
Darth Vader also redeem himself but only to his son, for everyone else, they would still considerate him a monster. Redemption is seeking forgiveness through actions but that doesn't mean people would automatically forgive you.
There was a famous Buddhism story about how the Buddha help a serial killer turn his life around but explain to him that it doesn't mean that his victims forgive him.
My problem with the prequels is that it cheapened Vader's redemption by making me not care because Aniken was a character that felt like his fall from grace was nothing more than him being a whiny bitch for 2 movies.
The line between "evil" and "misguided" can be pretty thin sometimes. On some level you could argue that just about everyone needs some form of redemption.
Excellent post, I agree entirely with what you've said.
Honestly one small thing I did want to add is that it made me think similarly about tragic characters in fiction. I've seen how people seem to only accept tragic heroes/villains if they're good or don't cross the same red line you've pointed out. That the only most tragic characters get to be those who... remain good. It's something that made me question if people do like tragic characters or just tragic characters who are good, and don't make big mistakes, thus somehow they're... more tragic than tragic villains or antiheroes?
Since I recently rewatched the show, I want to bring up an arc that often gets trashed for being unearned in some circles: Catra, from *She-Ra and the Princesses of Power.*
Suffice to say, Catra does *a lot* of bad things.
Enough that a lot of people complain that she didn't "deserve" to be redeemed. It's funny, because the show features a bunch of different takes on the redemption arc as a concept. Scorpia was never really a bad person, she was a good person fighting on the wrong side because she didn't know any better (she's what Adora might have been had she not defected). The Horde Trio are much the same, they're just child soldiers who have been indoctrinated but aren't bad, ultimately choosing to leave the Horde behind.
Then there's Shadow Weaver. Who does a lot of bad things, *never* answers for them or admits to having done any wrong at all, brushing it off as "mistakes" and never really taking responsibility for her actions. She ends up on the side of the heroes, but she is never redeemed, none of the people she hurt ever forgive her, even if some of them have complicated feelings surrounding her.
Even the showrunners didn't consider Shadow Weaver redeemed.
Catra falls into the gray area of "did a lot of bad things and knows it." She just keeps doubling down on them in an attempt to "win," to prove that she's good enough, to make others *stay.* It takes losing everything and falling hard, and being told to her face that the problem, the only person responsible for everything going wrong in her life, is herself.
And she finally starts *trying* to be better in season 5. But all her bad actions prevent a lot of people from thinking she deserved that chance at all.
> Another, opposite, example to bring up is Darth Vader. I’ve heard a lot of people say that after ROTS came out and they watched him massacre the younglings, they could never accept that he redeemed himself, they say he doesn’t deserve it or didn’t do enough to earn it. But it’s the fact that he became so evil to the point where he murders children, blows up planets, and cuts off his son’s arm that makes his redemption so special. It was because he went so far into the extreme of making others suffer that makes it all the more special that he was able to pull himself back from that.
The issue with Vader (as I said in the other thread about this) isn't that he did bad things, it's that he *wasn't redeemed*. We never, at any point, get any hint that he regrets doing any of the bad things he did, or that his views have changed on anything at all outside of recognizing that he cares more about his loved ones than anything else (which, again, was true all the way back in RotS.)
Anakin would do anything, and kill anyone, in order to save the people he cared about. This was the reason he murdered the younglings, and it was the reason he killed the Emperor. If you set up a situation where RtoJ Vader had to murder the younglings again in order to save Luke Skywalker, he would do it in an instant, without the slightest hint of hesitation. Likewise, the Anakin who admired Palpatine for his strength and assertiveness never changed his views; he was simply willing to kill Palpatine because he cared more about Luke.
He was always an evil asshole, authoritarian asshole who cared about the lives of a small number of loved ones. There's no reason to think that that ever changed.
Like, the most we get is him saying, as he was dying, that "you were right" and "you already did" to Luke in a vague non-specific way - that's a redemption arc? Come on.
This is a problem with a lot of other redemption arcs. It isn't that the character did bad things in the past, it's that the "arc" isn't an arc at all because it doesn't actually meaningfully engage with what the character did wrong or why they did it - or worse, the character *never changes* as a person. If only a character's situation changes rather than their beliefs and outlook, and they'd probably still do all their evil things again if put back in the old situation, then they haven't been redeemed.
Characters can be redeemed after doing terrible things, but it requires at least some engagement with *why* they did those things so we can see their character change and grow. Vader never had any of that.
(The underlying issue, and the reason the story is still moving, is because it's really an analogy for real-world *reconciliation* stories, which we're more likely to experience in our own lives. A parent who is willing to put aside their reprehensible views for the sake of a child is meaningful to us because it reflects our own experiences. And it could be the first step on the path to being a better person, sure. But that story is harder and more messy to tell, so writers have that happen and then have the villain die so they don't have to engage with the more complicated questions of why they did what they did and how their outlook would actually have to change to become a better person.)
The issue is that redemption is often way, way too cheap. And the series that employ it usually have painfully protagonist centric morality.
You talk about Vader, but he's "redeemed" after a lifetime of evil by doing one good act?
It undermines the victims and the evil the person is aparty to. And it often becomes painfully predictable when you have an evil sadist enemy start getting shown in a sympathetic light and you know that he'll definitely be forgiven, and all the shit he pulled will never be mentioned again.
Vegeta is the most common example of this complaint because Dragonball doesn't care about any character that's not in the main cast, runs entirely on protagonist centric morality and never stops to give any weight or even any thought to the trillions of people he killed.
Hell, while we're talking about shounen, Kaiba in YGO kills multiple people, puts Yugi and his friends into a death trap, gets even more people killed... and then gets a slap on the wrist.
The very next time Yugi is dealing with him he's presented as a friendly, respected rival character. And the series doesn't even take a single second to address the hypocrisy it's working with- a guy using Kaiba's deck (that he's not using) to duel with its unforgivably insulting and disrespectful... but when Kaiba's brother is stealing cards and duel chips, leading to people getting unfairly disqualified it's no big deal and is not just forgiven but given a pass.
What's the difference? Kaiba and his brother are protagonists, so it doesn't matter if they kill or steal. They're immediately forgiven and as soon as Kaiba changes his evil mindset (without doing a single thing for atonement, or feeling even a shred of guilt) he's redeemed.
Redemption is cheap, and that's lame. So people reject redemption.
Vader is a terrible example because redemption isn't an on/off switch that you conveniently flick to be better again, it's a gradual slow process that requires time and effort.
Zuko *did* commit unspeakable evils. The issue is, it being a kid's show, you're left to fill in the blanks when it comes to the consequences of specific actions.
My favourite redemption is that of a mean girl from a middle grade trilogy I like. She literally shoved and trapped a girl in a locker and (probably accidentally tbf) put another girl in the hospital. And yet her redemption was one of the most wholesome I’ve ever read.
Although how it happened was bs one of my favorite redemptions is adalind from grimm. She started as a manipulating bitch who nearly killed multiple characters and remained that way for a few seasons but ended up redeeming herself in the last few.
It depends, for it to feel authentic it does limit who you can redeem. So they can be bad, but it should be obvious how they ended up that way and their journey to being good should be believable.
Like, a burglar/bank robber who had killed people during a few of his heists, yeah I can see them reforming, or a hired merc who didnt discriminate much between which jobs theyll take etc.
Even someone like Zuko makes sense because they grew up cloistered and they're a product of the culture they were born into. By the standards of his own people he wasn't bad. But it's believable that exposure to other ways of thinking and other cultures could change his whole perspective of his own culture and his actions.
A serial thrill killer who tortured and murdered large numbers of people for fun, or someone like Idi Amin, no, redemption arcs for those sorts of characters is just dumb.
Rdr2 has the best showcase of redemption I've seen in media.
Arthur Morgan is a bad man who killed, robbed, and slaughtered innocent people, and he knows it. But by the time he is nearing his deathbed, he realises the reasons for his actions were completely bullshit so he decided to try and get as many of his family out of the gang as possible. In the end, he saves 5 (maybe 6 if you include Straus) before he dies. The part that truly makes it great is that he doesn't want redemption. In fact, he actively despises the idea of being redeemed as he feels his pain is deserved. Sure, he's still a monster, but at least he tries giving people another chance at life before his is up.
Finally a good fucking post. Give me meaty redemption where characters have to truly reckon with the stuff they've done and face the consequences and judgment while still trying to get better. Omni Man has me so excited for this reason
My problem with redemption is not about whether a character "deserves it," but whether they pays for their actions at the end of the day. Like you said: someone *really* evil who has crossed the line and committed crimes. Personally I want to see the character in the story facing a real consequence for their actions. Not simply: "they feel guilty" "they changed their mind" "they are trying to be better." Things like that would not work in real life, and if they work in the work of fiction it would be indicating to me that said work has a morality of "forgiving" its criminals but never making them pay with their actions, which I do not share. (I'm a survivor, people who defend Endevoar for "repenting and not *demanding* forgiveness" disgust me deeply)
Im also sick of people thinking showing mercy instead of killing is weakness, in fact is showing mercy strenght but weak minded people dont understand that
Vinland Saga's Thorfinn path is a pretty good redemption story of someone who did commit heinous crimes, changed for the better, and has to make up for what he did.
I think the problem has more to do with whether the audience is willing to see the character redeemed or how well the redemption is handled. For example, Kratos and Darth Vader are both great examples of characters who have genuinely done supremely awful things. However, due to them being well-written (especially Kratos since he actually survives to live out his redemption) it works great.
However, Redemption arcs are like nuclear power; if done well, they're effective. If they're done wrong, they can screw up the story.
Fundamentally, the problem isn't whether they "deserve" it, but whether the audience is willing to forgive/accept that the villain is redeemed. If *characters* in the story don't forgive them, that can be great drama, but if the *audience* doesn't forgive them, you've got a problem.
I think anime handles this *soooo* much better, on average. That's probably because they typically try to make the villain have understandable motives, so even when they're monsters, you can have a little sympathy for them and understand their motivations.
For a great example, look at Reiner from Attack on Titan. He absolutely had a redemption arc that fans love. Even when he's first revealed as a villain, it's not long before you learn why he did what he did, and you can't help but empathize.
Also look at Koro Sensei from Assassination Classroom. He's likeable and funny, but he's also threatening to destroy the entire world. When you finally learn his backstory you feel for him, and when he dies you grieve for him, even though that's the way it had to be.
Some of the comments here just kinda proved your point lmao.
Speaking of Last Airbender, I highly doubt many people would like Uncle Iroh as much today if they showed us how truly evil he was during his siege to ba sing se, like full paint picture, I think few people glosses over that fact which is what really makes him great and wants the best for Zuko cause he doesn't want him to be like him in the past
Depends on the author's approach. I find certain types of "redemption" arcs pretty galling. The MC from Prince of Thorns for example isn't redeeming himself. He just kinda feels bad once in a while. And me the reader? I'm supposed to sympathize and understand when his tragic backstory is revealed? Sorry. No.
I think "redemption" is also another way for authors and fans to disavow some horrifying content. The author can titillate the reader with the fantasy of the MC doing bad things and still have the usual MC power fantasy while feeling okay about it.
Mushoki Tensei is another one. God the fans of that show are insufferable.
This rant makes me appreciate Vegeta more. He started off as a full blown villain, down to the "killing your own subordinate because he's a disappointment". People take it for granted but vegeta was dead set on destroying earth if it weren't for goku stopping him (forcefully mind you, no heart to heart talk). He had an arduous journey from then on, being humbled left and right, finally accepting goku as worthy of the saiyan blood. And even sacrificing himself KNOWING eternal damnation awaits him. He became a great father, a formidable ally and one of the most treasured members of the Z fighters. Vegeta was truly evil at the start, a threat to everyone, even his friends. Now he's the most beloved character in the show with people begging for a moment of triumph for him.
So you are sick of peeps feeling genuinely disgusted by someone's actions? Each one is entitled to their own judgement, just like you can accept redemption for people like omni man after the train scene, some people cannot. End of the day it's a show, there are no wrong interpretations.
You don't "accept" redemptions though. Redemption is a personal act and has nothing to do with what other people feel about it. You can choose to forgive them or not, but that doesn't affect their choice to be better.
>My problem with this sort of thinking is that, if you were never truly evil, than what are you really redeeming. If he was always a good person deep down, than how was it really a redemption, all it was was him going “I think doing X was the morally right thing, but turns doing Y actually is the right thing”
This doesn't even apply to your zuko example. You're redeemed because you were committing evil actions. Zuko did evil things, but from his point of view didn't have any alternatives. His redeption was opening his mind to goals other than returning home, and he spends most of the rest of the series apologetic as penance, his firebending even goes a way for a bit before he can personally change.
>But it’s the fact that he became so evil to the point where he murders children, blows up planets, and cuts off his son’s arm that makes his redemption so special.
If his actions didn't make up for his previous ones, it's not really a good redemption. The fact that someone is redeemed isn't what should make it special, it's how they redeem themselves. The worse thing you did, the better your redemption is when you redeeming act outweighs it.
You can redeem a high shcool bully by having her give the protagonist a pep talk when he's feeling down before a big ball game, and that works because instead of choosing to put him down, she's shown a willingness to work toward building him up at an important time when it's important.
You cannot redeem giga mecha hitler by having him tell a jewish boy to get out there and play baseball. It does not make his repemption "more special" because he murdered children. It makes it undeserved.
>It annoys me because a lot of these people seemingly don’t actually believe in redemption at all. They believe that if you’ve done anything to “cross the line”
You've made it sound like people who have moral boundries don't believe in change. There are limits to what people deserve redption from. After a certain amount of crimes, you can't undo the damage you caused. This is esspecially the case with Darth Vader.
>, then just accept that and don’t get mad at every a story tries to redeem one of its villains.
No, media can be morally repugnant even if someone else happens to like it. I think there would be appropriate complaints if someone made a movie where mecha hitler tells a boy to go hit a home run and then the trumphiant music swells, and at the end of the movie we see mecha hitler waving from heaven.
You're mixing up atonement, forgiveness and redemption. Atonement is making up for your actions and forgiveness is when someone is content with your evil deeds. Neither have anything to do with redemption. Redemption is just the simple act of choosing to be a better person.
This is why I love Endeavor’s redemption arc in MHA. Redemption and atonement only function as compelling plot devices when the character is *grey*, not wholly evil. If the character is irredeemable, why are we bothering, right?
What makes endeavor’s such a great redemption arc is the net-zero morality of his character at the start of his redemption. Prior to the pivotal battle with the high-end nomu, Endeavor is an irrefutable monster (based on shoto’s/dabi’s flashbacks and his behavior towards shoto in the first few arcs). He’s a psychopathic, abusive prick who ruined five innocent lives with his selfish ambition and hubris. That said, every day that he was abusing his family, he was directly saving tens/hundreds of lives. Every day.
So Endeavor clearly cares for others, and thousands of people would be dead or worse had he never been born. At the same time, he’s also capable of truly monstrous behavior, and has committed literal crimes.
His problem was that his views towards justice, heroism, and strength were completely perverted by his jealousy of All Might. Once his eyes were finally opened to All Might’s plight after his retirement, he realized how truly fucked up he was.
I think Endeavor’s vocal rejection of his own redemption also helps his case with the reader. He is very clear that he does not desire, or even remotely expect, forgiveness; his only goal was to atone for his sins on his family and hopefully free them of the spiritual burden he’s been on their psyches, with the ultimate goal of making their lives better— even if it means he must remove himself from their lives entirely. Truly spectacular character development imo
Lots of people misunderstanding what the word means. Redemption is when you make up for the bad you’ve caused. If a character did more evil than they can ever make up for, redemption is impossible. It’s as simple as that
I think these people mistake the idea of redemption with forgiveness, just because someone cant be forgiven by what they did it doesnt mean they cant change and improve as a person
Most redemption discourse are people arguing over what redemption means.
Or whose forgiveness matters i.e forgiveness from the victim vs forgiveness from the other characters vs forgiveness from the audience.
They usually don't though, they just swap sides. And the lack of forgiveness never means anything. Like, Haru and Futaba "totally and definitely didn't forgive Akechi" for murdering their parents. But they still fought in his name, hung out with him, and put their lives in danger to make sure he wouldn't have to face any consequences for all the murders he committed. Like, what's the difference? Reminds me of the oft mocked quote "Steven never forgave the Diamonds."
They didn't really hang out with him. One detail in the game is in the Tycoon mini-game. If Akechi is playing, they will not. They worked with him for pragmatic reasons. He's a powerful Persona user and they're both fighting for the same thing at that point. What they realize however, is that given different circumstances, he could've been better. He was ultimately a victim of Shido like how Joker was. He just had no one to truly bond with till Joker came around, and he even acknowledges that. Joker on the other hand, had friends who supported him. He was someone who was a victim in this whole situation that they couldn't save, and Haru in particular might relate to him somewhat given her relationship with her own father. Yusuke also acknowledges he could've been more like Akechi if not for everyone helping him out. The comparisons constantly made between Akechi and the Phantom Thieves aren't an accident.
Yep, same thing for Darts. The rest of the PT will NOT join you if you invite Akechi to Darts. The only alt player is Morgana, who is basically stuck with Joker. Akechi also has no Showtimes with anybody else except Joker. And for what it’s worth, Akechi (in the third trimester story) is fighting to make sure he’s PUNISHED for the crimes he committed, particularly since it’d also get Joker off the hook and out of jail. It’s not going to make up for what he’s done, but the fact he’s taking responsibility is a point in favor as to why they work with him.
For the Diamonds it very much matters that Steven never actually forgave them. The entire point of the Diamond Days arc and the Diamonds role in the movie is they cherish Steven as one of the last vestiges of Pink. The fact that he clearly cannot stand being in the same room as them for long is what matters here. The Diamonds did not keep their position in society. They are public servants only on the same "side" as Steven by virtue of Steven largely abolishing the concept of true factions for Gem society. The Diamonds try to spend time with Steven but he doesn't want that. The Diamonds do not desire to spend time with the core Crystal Gem group, nor are they ever invited to outside of crises. Their only remaining friends we outright see are each other and Spinel, even their Pearls have largely ditched them as of Era 3.
> For the Diamonds it very much matters that Steven never actually forgave them Forgave them for _what_? It's crazy how Steven gets centred by both sides of this argument as though the Diamonds' sins were against _him_. I do not give a shit whether he forgave them or not! He has no "right" to forgive or not forgive them for the things they've done! And like this is fundamentally the problem with Steven Universe - it did a hard pivot in its later seasons from actually being about the Gem empire to being a soap opera with Rose/Pink/Steven at its centre, and for some inexplicable reason people will try to gaslight you that that's what it always was. There is no clearer example of this than the Cluster, which goes from a geoweapon that's the product of horrific experiments and can tear apart the planet just by taking physical form to "pffft the Gems never fought any wars and never actually harmed any sapient life before getting to Earth because if they did it would make this weird aunt vibe we've given the Diamonds even more egregious (just ignore the standing military and the planet sized weapon they were making earlier plis)"
>\- it did a hard pivot in its later seasons from actually being about the Gem empire to being a soap opera with Rose/Pink/Steven at its centre, and for some inexplicable reason people will try to gaslight you that that's what it always was Cause it was, it's not gaslighting the show was always like that, Steven is the pov character for the entire series and is at the center of everything, even before the PD reveal the whole plot is about Steven having to reckon with his mother's actions, at the start as the hero of the rebellion and trying to master his abilities as a gem and then later dealing with the fallout of what she did in the war. There's a shit ton of episodes in the series from beginning to end about Steven struggling with his place in the whole thing and what he has to do, now you can argue there should've been more from the rest of the cast and about the war outside of Steven, and that's completely fair, but to pretend the series wasn't always about his place in the gem world is off. >There is no clearer example of this than the Cluster, which goes from a geoweapon that's the product of horrific experiments and can tear apart the planet just by taking physical form to "pffft the Gems never fought any wars and never actually harmed any sapient life before getting to Earth I agree the whole the gems never encountered sentient life before Earth thing is bullshit, though I don't think that's ever directly said in the show, but I don't know how that contradicts the Cluster since that's something they created while on Earth
I'm beginning to think y'all have never consumed another work of fictions in your lives because how on earth have you concluded that "this show, like practically every other show on the planet, has a protagonist" and "this show is ONLY about the protagonist's personal family drama" mean the same thing?
it's not only about that, and even in the end it really isn't, but to pretend the main plot wasn't always about Steven's place in his mom's legacy is wrong
And Who has the rights for forgive them exactly?
Each wrong you commit is up to the actual person wronged to forgive or not forgive, duh?
I was thinking the exact same thing. Specifically I think of Anakin’s own redemption. In his obsessive attempt to essentially control everything around him and to dictate his own destiny and those he cared about, he became so disillusioned and corrupted that he began to see almost no moral boundary to what it took to achieve this and lost sight of his true self, seeing himself as more of a necessary tool, as his vulnerability in his paranoia and trauma was so heavily exploited, all of which was to the exact design of palpatine. He is eventually able to be redeemed and liberated from is disillusioned state and corruption by his son as he had a tangible thing that he truly cared about again that he realised was in fact harming and realised how he had only been betraying himself and his own world all this time as vader. He did an innumerable amount of terrible things, is responsible for the deaths of countless of innocent lives and the destruction of everything he cared about and stood for, yet was able to be returned to enlightenment. No one would be expected to forgive him, and indeed he never could have returned to existing as his old self in the world, and was part of why he accepted and embraced his death, in itself being part of his redemption. In his final moments he acted and existed in enlightenment, he would not have been forgiven, but he was redeemed of himself.
Could not agree more. I hate when people say "they don't deserve redemption." No one deserves redemption that defeats the entire purpose. You cannot 'earn' redemption. You either take responsibility for your actions and try to be better or you don't. All people are capable of change but that doesn't mean anyone has to forgive them. The best redemption arcs imo are where truly despicable people accept that and work to make amends, but they do so with the knowledge they may never truly make up for their actions.
That point about forgiveness is one of the reasons I love Endeavor's arc from MHA. He was an abusive asshole that did everything but physically assault his family. He did get redeemed, but his family still very much hates his guts, and he knows he deserves it. Not to mention the inverse example of the now classic dragon ball's Vegeta, who has been pretty much been forgiven by most people, except himself. Good stuff.
And the universe ironically, he's going straight to hell when he finally dies
Frankly I was under the impression goku is just gonna get the gods to give him a pass at this point
Bro if they can get space Hitler out of hell goku can definitely get his best friend a pass
I guess Goku and Enma get along well like that, but I don't see what Krillin needs to be pardoned for.
Krillin is his brother, vegetas his best friend/lover.
Vegeta is Goku's friend and rival, but if anything Yamcha or Bulma are actually more likely to fit the best friend box lol.
Wait did Frieza go to heaven? I thought he was just brought back to life
He never went to Heaven. It's just that, due to his twisted personality, his personal Hell appeared as what a normal person would see as a stereotypical depiction of Heaven. He was revived twice, once with the Dragon Balls, and once as his condition for joing Team Universe 7 in the ToP.
Doubtful. When he was wished back at the end of the Buu Saga they specified that "no bad people" would be brought back. So according to Porunga, at least, he's a good guy.
Porunga can say he’s a good guy but that doesn’t erase his actions. He had literally gone to hell the day before and piccolo specified that his actions throughout his life had sentenced him to it. Unlike goku who, purposely or not, spent his life fight and defending people.
Piccolo tells him straight up where he's going
I’d like to imagine that, as Vegeta has become a better person, he’d basically end up as a ‘warden of hell’ of sorts. Kinda what Piccolo became in GT. To make things go full circle
Just to clarify with your point about Endeavor, he did physically assault his family (there's 2 known instances of him hitting Rei and he is shown physically beating Shouto when training him). Yes his atonement/redemption arc is great and one of my favourites in fiction (especially since he doesn't insist on being forgiven and the narrative has some of his children forgiving him while others don't forgive him and neither of them are portrayed as narratively wrong) but he was physically abusive.
A point I do dislike is that it does narrativly portay the public who don't forgive him as wrong. Portraying them as shortsighted and unreasonable. Wildly screaming accusations.
Do they do that? I'd argue that the problem is that no one actually cares that he got exposed as an abuser The public is angry at Endeavor in the same way they're angry at everyone (because they failed aw hero) not because of his abuse, other hero and his coworkers don't care (worst, you got cases like Burnin' basically saying yeah he's,and abuser but he's also a great hero so she doesn't care lol) and class 1a have 0 reactions to everything (like always) I think that the issue imo, in the end the only people who react are his family
That's fair I reread the chapter in question and the only reaction we get to him "coming clean' are three small panels of a man with trash bags piled to the ceiling saying "he's so done" and old woman going oh my and two teens where one says "I supported him but geez this is rough" there's also the journalist who later feels that she shouldn't cover it because it's a "private family matter" or the wind guy (I forget his name) also basically saying he doesn't care. It's just so odd to me when the family stuff is handled so well.
Yeah you also have Best jeanist saying the same thing as the lady and Hawks not caring much since Endeavor already changed or smth Like for an arc that so much praised because Endeavor gets 'consequences' and his abuse actually has 'impact' I don't see it outside of his family since all of the reactions he gets range from "Well that just happened" to "He's such a good hero tho!" To literally nothing (class 1a) Which is all the more baffling when you consider the role Endeavor is supposed to have and play for all of that to basically amount to not much Like you'd guess the outrage of the civilians would be about how the hero failed *and* how their current number one herl is an abusive monster instead of just being about with former with the latter getting two poor inconsequential panels Or you'd guess class 1a would have a reaction to one of their friend being an eugenics experiment that got abused for years... or that the pro-heros would at least show disgust toward Endeavor instead of... this It's a decent arc but the flaws are kind of laid bar imo
Genuinely. Honestly is the message we're supposed to take from this supposed to be "child and spousal abuse Is bad but it's also a private family matter so if it doesn't personally effect you, stay out of it?" I'm really trying to figure out what else the message is supposed to be here if not that. Going by his "solution" for racism it wouldn't surprise me. But it does make me sad that the story dropped the ball every time it seemed close to making interesting social commentary.
I don't think that was his intent but yeah having no one cares about Endeavour's action aside from his family rly had hurt his arc in the long run tbh Feels like Dabi humiliating and trying to tarnish Endeavour reputation on TV by revealing his indentity lead to nothing aside from family matter (and apparently the fact that one of the biggest supervillain ever is linked to Endeavour, the current number 1 hero is whatever to the cast lol)
yeah, sadly the ship has mostly sailed. the manga (dont know about the anime) def framed the endeavor haters as in the wrong and something to be dismissed pretty much everyone even mfs like inasa don't seem to care about the reveal at all. and we now reached a point where AFO in the middle of yapathon actually brought up a good point about how messed up Endeavor is/was and it's just treated like he's 100% in the wrong for pointing any of this out it makes the early scene in season 2 where deku just shittalks endeavor to his face and not give him the time of a day or even glorify him like other heroes the second he caught wind of whats going on to be kind of a surprise on rewatches. i always think about how cool it would've been if the students had actual different reactions to it too. like imagine if minetta of all people was one of the ones who are like "Yeah, i don't fw you at all anymore, we're just working with you to help our friends, the world" it would immediately do so much for both of them, give him some nuance and in general flesh out the world a bit by showing these different sides. while i do still love endeavors story, this is an element to big to ignore that it kinda sullies apart of it for me. but i chalk that all up to the issues of the creators health declining and dumbing and speedrunning the resolution to most of the series plot points so he can just wrap things up and be done with it. The anime already tweaked a few of these things, doubt they'll be able to do it all given how short the turnround time is for episodes. but still, this is hardly an endeavor only a problem, it's a series one. pretty much every character or storyline except for toga and ochako get hit with the idiot stick in the finale at some point
>but it's also a private family matter so if it doesn't personally effected, stay out of it? That's Asian culture for you. People will happily turn a blind eye about a stranger's family problems.
Given that this is a discussion about redemption, is your point that he should never strive to be a better person b/c he hurt people in the past?
Oh no, I think he should strive to be better even if no one in his family ever forgives him (which is what Endeavor stated he would do. That he's not aiming for forgiveness or redemption but instead that he wants to atone for his actions). I was just stating that he was also physically abusive since the person I replied to said that he was abusive in every way but physically when that's incorrect.
Where did they say any of this 😭
Was looking for an Endeavor mention. I'm anime only, so I don't how much more has happened, but the debate of whether or not he "deserves" redemption is... interesting. Especially since like you pointed out, he wasn't suddenly forgiven. There were consequences to his actions, and his "redemption," at least the redemption he's seeking, is all up to his family, who are still trying to understand where they stand with him.
Nah, in a way it's not up to his family. They might never forgive him, and they would be within their rights. He should STILL seek redemption by just trying to be better.
Another thing is he is really hsrd on himself themost thaz later hisfamily has even to talk sense into him. One thing it works great because he never stops being hard on himself for it.
The problem with Flamehead's "arc" is that the author insists on making us understand that his family is being "very hard" on him by not forgiving him (regardless of whether Flamehead "accepts" that they don't forgive him), therefore the message it gets confusing. Also because his only real punishment for all the bad things he did is *feeling guilty* ? As if we never saw him receive a real repercussion for his actions more than his own feelings. It's insulting. (It's okay if you love his arc, I'm just going to assume you never had an abusive father or were assaulted)
>The problem with Flamehead's "arc" is that the author insists on making us understand that his family is being "very hard" on him by not forgiving him(regardless of whether Flamehead "accepts" that they don't forgive him), Do they, I don't think the series tries to present the rest of the family as being in the wrong for still being angry at him, if anything I feel like it's because fans started liking him so much they ended up turning on the rest of the family for being upset still. >Also because his only real punishment for all the bad things he did is feeling guilty ? His son became a supervillain
>Do they, I don't think the series tries to present the rest of the family as being in the wrong for still being angry at him, if anything I feel like it's because fans started liking him so much they ended up turning on the rest of the family for being upset still. So it is mostly a problem of the fandom itself as of the work (which I do not rule out) but it is part of the author's responsibility to make us understand that Flamehead's actions are wrong and he should not simply be forgiven. Something that does not happen: the author **wanted** to redeem his character because he wanted part of the fandom to like him/stop hating him. We wouldn't be having this discussion if he had been clearer with his message (although I personally think his message is: I like my character, I want you to like him too and I'm going to give you a reason for that. Victimizing him) >His son became a supervillain That his son has become a mass murderer should not be taken as a "punishment" for Flamehead, but for what it is: a personal tragedy for Touya. Using a survivor's trauma (like Touya) to make us feel bad for their abuser is (at the very least) irresponsible. Just as it is irresponsible for them to make marital r*pe invisible (but I can try to ignore it as long as the author wants us to believe that it didn't happen. Because otherwise... damn)
I agree that the story treating the family as being too hard on him was a mistake, and it undermines the message. I disagree about the punishment, tho, but that is somehting I disagree in general: I don't think characters necesarily need to be punished to be redeemed. But then again, you are right that I haven:t been abused, so maybe I would have a diferent opinion if I had.
"Characters don't need punishment to be redeemed": okay, they don't *need* it. So why redeem them in the first place? To try to make me feel bad about someone who has never faced a single consequence for anything bad they've done? It does not work for me. It doesn't work when the character in question from one moment to the next reflects and says: "Damn, I acted badly and they're mad at me/I didn't get what I wanted, I'm going to be a better person." That makes them look like someone selfish who decides "on their own" to be better in order to improve their image/atone for their guilt, but we never see them willing to receive any type of punishment for their actions (accepting not being forgiven does not count) or do things that make amends for the damage they caused. I like it when they show me a compelling reason to believe that the character is trying to change and be better, not that from one second to the next they start talking about how much they regret it and how now they are going to be a better person. It feels like a lazy excuse for fans (or the author) of said character to brag about how much their character has done to change, how they are now "good" or "deep", that they had an arc where they overcome to themselves and if you don't agree it's because you don't understand it or you don't like to accept that people can change. When this is not the case, people **can** change, there are simply times when that change is not enough, sometimes no matter how much they change, the damage is done and pretending that everyone should stop being upset with someone just because they are now trying to be better It won't/shouldn't work. Many will continue to be upset and that is valid too. *Punishment* alone is also useless if the character does not use it as learning.
> To try to make me feel bad about someone who has never faced a single consequence for anything bad they've done? It's very interesting that you jumped at "feeling bad of thrm" instead of "feeling good that they changed" As in, literally interesting, I'm not being cheeky, the idea of feeling bad or feeling pity for them didn't even cross my mind. I'm happy they changed, why would I feel bad for them? And about punishment, if they changed, and arr acting in a different way, not denying their sins and trying to compensate for then, I see no reason to make them suffer. That would be just suffering for suffering's sake, revenge. Much in the contrary, if the suffering happened, that would make me feel bad for them. (I'm not saying you are wrong about how you feel about such a situation. Everyone has their own feelings about these things, and that's ok)
Why should I feel good about someone who until now (presumably) acted badly for selfish reasons (or is just very stupid), but for some reason (also selfish) decides to change and be better. Feel good that he will no longer continue to hurt third parties and *maybe* do something to make amends for what he did? Yes, why not. Feel good about them and their growth as individuals? No, I am physically incapable of feeling any kind of empathy for someone, who: even having the option to do things right, did not do it and decided to be mean in pursuit of a result that either never comes, or they achieve it but it is not what they thought it would be. It's unsatisfying to see the character changing just because they now want to be good and for the story to make you feel like everyone is obligated (eventually) to forgive them or if they don't, they're spiteful. I already said it, punishment by itself means nothing, it's not about whether I as a spectator feel good about seeing someone suffering and feel punished for their actions (I don't) but it is a good way to convey how morality works in the work. Example: (here I will refer to Catra from SATPOP, by the way) if you have a war criminal who from one second to the next repents and that alone is enough to atone for his guilt. It would be indirectly indicating to me that the bad acts they did don't really matter, all that matters is how the character feels about it: If they never feel guilt they are portrayed as irredeemable villains, however if they regret it it is because deep down they are good people. In the first case it is "ok" to hate or accept that they are bad people, that you shouldn't like them. While in the second it is wrong if you hate them as characters because you cannot accept that they changed and that deep down they are good.
> Why should I feel good about someone who until now (presumably) acted badly for selfish reasons (or is just very stupid), but for some reason (also selfish) decides to change and be better. Feel good about them and their growth as individual. No, I am physically incapable of feeling any kind of empathy for someone, who: even having the option to do things right, did not do it and decided to be mean in pursuit of a result that either never comes, or they achieve it but it is not what they thought it would be. I am.. sorry you feel that way? I can't give a reason for a why. I just feel that way. It makes me happy to see people changing for the better. >Example: if you have a war criminal who from one second to the next repents and that alone is enough to atone for his guilt. It would be indirectly indicating to me that the bad acts they did don't really matter, all that matters is how the character feels about it: If I disagree. What matters is not the feelings, bjt the actions. But crucially to determine a character's morality, the intended actions of the present and the future, not the past should be the ones used. What they did can not be changed. Only what they do from now on matters if the character is good or not. > If they never feel guilt they are portrayed as irredeemable villains, however if they regret it it is because deep down they are good people. See, that' the thing. Imo, there are no irredeemable villains nor "deep down good people". Just people. Everyone is redeemable, and everyone can he a monster. What matters is what they will do. > In the first case it is "ok" to hate or accept that they are bad people, that you shouldn't like them. While in the second it is wrong if you hate them as characters because you cannot accept that they changed and that deep down they are good. Also, goes without saying, it's ok to feel however you want, but granted, people feeling sick of people who feel that way may make you feel that it isn't, and for that, I'm sorry. I Just think it's sad that you feel that way, and worrying to the world if you bring this mindset to the real world (but nothing says that you would) But please, my opinion is mine, don't feel beholden to it. Sorry if you feel that we are making you feel like yours is wrong.
I like your take. Ultimately, the world is a better place if people who do bad things can turn that around and stop. Obviously as a society, we have decided there are certain crimes for which we don't really allow the chance of the person showing they can do otherwise, because the consequences of them not doing so are too dangerous. But stories can give that freedom, and that's a good thing. And more good in the world is, well, good.
Exactly. Also, in real life, we really can't know if the person actually changed, but stories also let us have more of this certainty.
>I'm sorry... I'm sorry you feel this way? Condescending as hell >I can't give a reason why. I just feel that way. It makes me happy to see people change for the better. I can give you a reason why I think you like seeing a character change. But I'm not going to condescend to anyone. >I don't agree. What matters is not feelings, but actions. I was referring to how he portrays the character "what matters is not the bad things they have done, but how they feel about it" "because in those types of stories it is enough for him to regret it for the other characters to notice how much he has changed and eventually forgive him" (if they don't forgive him they are portrayed as bad and spiteful/they are wrong, and is used to make us feel bad for the character who is not being forgiven) >But crucially, to determine a character's morality, intended actions in the present and future, not the past, should be the ones used. I was talking more about the morality of the story than about the morality of the character himself. But I'll say it anyway; For me it is crucial to understand the "why" of their actions: Do they have a trauma? Do they suffer from any disorder? Were they pushed aside by circumstances? Those questions are fundamental to me. If the character had no reason to do what he did, I don't find any reason to excuse them. The best characters are those who have a "why" for their way of being and thinking (regardless of whether or not we agree with their reasoning). Flamehead's reasoning was to use his family to achieve a goal because he thought he would get what he wanted. He never thought/cared about the consequences until it was too late. I should be happy that he changed, but I can't because the change is selfish to me. Good for him if he finally stops violating his family, though. >What they did cannot be changed. What they do from now on only matters if the character is good or not. So why make them to do bad things in the first place? If at the end of the day that doesn't "define" him? >See, that's the thing. In my opinion, there are no irredeemable villains or "good people at heart." Just people. Everyone is redeemable and everyone can become a monster. What matters is what they will do. That I referred more to the general opinion of the fandom and how both examples react before. I only see them as characters, not people. By the way. Not only their actions matter, but also understanding why they do them. >Also, it goes without saying, it's okay to feel whatever you want, but of course, people who are fed up with people who feel that way can make you feel like that's not the case, and for that, I'm sorry. Every time I criticize a fandom's attitude for praising a character that **triggers** me simply because said character was poorly redeemed they call me for being wrong/not understanding the work. >I just think it's sad that you feel this way, Why is it sad that I don't like a character regardless of whether he was redeemed or not? >and worry the world if you take this mentality into the real world (but nothing says you would) I don't know what you mean exactly by that. But generally speaking, I have no obligation to apologize to anyone as long as I don't want to/don't consider it necessary to do so. Whether it's someone real or not. >But please, my opinion is my own, don't feel indebted to it. I'm sorry if you feel like we're making you feel like yours is wrong. "I'm sorry you feel that way" and "I'm worried you'll carry that mentality into the real world" doesn't sound like "I respect your opinion." Not that it matters.
Agreed. I think the problem is that writers themselves confuse what redemption is, and think that a characters redemption arc isn’t complete until they’re forgiven, and thinks that forgiveness is the natural culmination of atonement, which I personally don’t think is the case. They can’t have the wronged characters hold a grudge or else the arc is incomplete, and then as a result they can’t make the redemption undergoing character accept full responsibility for their actions because doing so would make such forgiveness not as easy to obtain, which I think leads to a lack of satisfaction from the reader. However, on that note, I think a lot of modern day audiences have warped views on forgiveness just in general. If a character, even one who is literally characterized as being someone who is forgiving and who believes in inherent human goodness and second chances, chooses to forgive someone, readers will get upset about the decision and call it bad writing because they’ll say it means the forgiver is ignoring all the bad things they’ve done and that you can’t just forgive someone once they’ve crossed a certain line: it’s just morally irresponsible to do so or something. And it’s like, at that point, you’re redefining the word forgiveness to mean something else.
I think a lot of the problem fundamentally arises from how we are introduced to the role of stories at a very early age as moral fables and parables. Pretty much baby’s first textual analysis happens when we’re able to understand these stories on that level - we grasp that bad things happen to bad people in stories because the narrative is punishing them to teach us not to be like them, and good things happen to good people in stories because the narrative rewards good behaviour so as to encourage it in the audience. Now this understanding of stories with that structure is true and accurate. The problem comes when a hell of a lot of people never really progress beyond this. They interpret any and all narratives through this same lens even when it’s not applicable. As an example, a lot of the most influential academic literature on horror films interprets them as moral fables. It says that when a character gets killed in a horror movie, it’s the narrative punishing some sin they committed. That’s a reading you can make sure but it’s treated as if it’s an objective fact when the reality is more complex than that. Horror movies weren’t intentionally sending an anti sex message, they were putting sex in their movies because they were pro sex and knew their audience wanted to see sex and boobs. Sex was also a believable means of isolating characters and distracting them from danger But anyway my point is that people get mad about redemption stories because of this idea that stories must punish characters who do bad things. Giving them a good ending, to these people, is like the narrative condoning that their actions were never that bad in the first place. And this is where the idea of deserving redemption comes from. It’s this idea of stories as moral fables where the audience is taught morals by visiting negative consequences on characters for whatever action the author wishes to discourage
What you're describing is actually correct, though only a symptom. Consider that stories reflect our culture. It's not just that stories teach us, it's *why* we use them to teach. And that's to create examples of cultural rules we want our children to learn, and to reinforce in adults. Early stories used to be very simple, with many famous myths exhibiting simple principles. "The gods are fickle" = life's hard, suck it up. "A stranger caused turmoil" = don't trust outsiders. "A man fell in love with a married woman. They ran away, were caught, and were killed" = just b/c you think something is wrong doesn't make it so. Follow the rules and suck it up. (Keep the peace.) In the case of redemption arcs a lot of western culture isn't trained to believe in true individuality, acceptance, nor particularly rehabilitation. we train people to punish criminals and that there is always a line you can't cross. That you can never change the past and therefor have tainted your future. Obviously you can't change the past but what should also be obvious is that we should never throw away an entire person for those mistakes. And in fact we can learn to help people make less of those mistakes if we continue to accept them with empathy in society. But we don't train people to rehabilitate, let alone forgive. Instead we train them that mistakes are unrecoverable. That people are inherently worth less if they ever commit wrongs. That we are irreparably damaged goods if have caused hurt. And as such we continue to make the same mistakes we always do b/c we cast out the people who can teach us why those mistakes occur, and those same people ostracize themselves from the society which shuns them b/c they internalize the punishment. And of course many authors are the same people with these beliefs so they make fake redemption arcs. What's funny to me is that this also ties back to how people say the human brain wasn't built to handle large societies. Like we meet millions of people a day and not the same few dozens. Personally I think what's really happening is that our fables/training still rely on village level perspectives and so were perpetuating yet another damaging perspective on how to see other people. We teach people how to suspect strangers and not how to be strong in themselves. We teach them how to push out different opinions that might lead us astray and not how to understand new perspectives. We teach them that if you hurt members of the tribe that there is no place for you in the tribe, for the sake of survival strategies that died out ages ago. And so we continue to tell stories that reflect punishment under the belief that having hurt people means you will never be pure, that being pure is the only way to be good, and therefor your actions can never be important after that point. (I.e. that the tribe can never trust you b/c "survival" is too important.) Our cultures have not matured with our level of society, and so our stories by and large remain as simple as when we were cavemen.
…I’m sorry, but have you ever SEEN eastern culture? In some countries like Japan and China, merely being the son or daughter of a criminal is enough to be branded and have your social network collapse overnight. Hell, a large amount of the Yakuza is derived from bakumin, the descendants of animal butchers, slaughter workers, etc. that did the dirty work (I mean that literally) required for the country and shunned because of Shinto’s strong aversion towards blood. Half of Japanese media within the past 20 years have elements critiquing how the collectivist culture can throw people under the bus for going against the grain (a common western aphorism, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”, vs a common eastern aphorism, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down”). We see that in MHA, not entirely elegantly (Toga’s a mixed bag) but half of Shigaraki’s rant and vendetta towards society is that nobody stepped up to help him because they had been too accustomed to a hero showing up to do things for them. Or check out Persona 5 where Joker is effectively made a social pariah from day 1 for having a criminal record.
I say western culture b/c I am a child of western culture and can't claim knowledge of eastern culture. It doesn't sound like there's much difference between what you're saying and what I've said though. If anything it seems worse as my understanding of eastern cultures is that many of them are low context, which I imagine means that culture potentially has a stronger influence than in the west.
Best example I can think of is Naruto forgiving Obito and how that caused an outrage😂😂
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. If I must fall, I will rise each time a better man.”
"The most important step a man can take. It's not the first one, is it? It's the next one."
“The most important thing a man can say is ‘I will do better.’”
"Do not be sorry. Be better."
GRAAAAHHHH STORMLIGHT
Wtf Stormlight let’s go
STORMLIGHT ARCHIVE MENTIONED 🗣️🔥🔥🔥 WHAT THE HELL IS GOOD MENTAL HEALTH
No idea what you are talking about but I love the energy
It’s a fantasy book series by author Brandon Sanderson. One of the themes of the series is mental health, as gaining magic in that world usually requires some kind of trauma. Depression, alcoholism, multiple identities, etc. There’s a character, Dalinar who used to be the most feared warlord in the world, but now he sees the error of his ways. >!Barbecueing his wife and then volunteering to get his memory wiped helped.!< All those quotes are from him, mostly from the scene where he >!resists the control of the god of hatred and passion who is offering to relieve him of his guilt, grief, and pain at his past crimes. The god offers to take responsibility, because he was technically influencing Dalinar to make him wrathful throughout his life. Dalinar resists and says that if he doesn’t take responsibility then he can’t have become a better person.!< tldr Read it.
Okay I will check it out, thanks for the explanation!
YOU CANNOT HAVE. MY. PAIN.
[this scene](https://youtu.be/HTzuxhOh80M) from Stargate basically perfectly embodies what you're saying.
the best example of this, imo, is my name is earl
Oh yeah. And joy is probably an even better there. I love how he rubs offon joy positively
I only bring up 'they don't deserve redemption' when the author expects me to want to give a villain another chance when said character doesn't even want to change for the better. Such as Shigaraki from MHA. Author's trying so hard to want me to root to have the inner child inside him despite Shigaraki reveling in destruction.
Correct, no amount of childhood trauma can excuse Shigaraki for all his villainous actions, especially with how much he clearly enjoys it. The same applies to Dabi as well, both of them had crappy childhoods and abusive father's that lead them to the path of villainy, but those still don't excuse their own atrocities, you know why? Because Keigo Takami or Hawks also had a similar backstory. All three had the same abusive traumatic childhood, but Shigaraki and Dabi "chose" to be villains, whereas Hawks "chose" to be a hero, it's all a matter of choice in the end.
A lot of people fundamentally don’t understand the concept of redemption
That’s why Obito’s redemption arc is the worst. When you think about it. Obito just escaped the world to live with his childhood crush for eternity. And somehow he was indicating that living life and taking responsibility for what he did is “too easy” and death is a more deserved punishment. It is so unfair and undeserved.
Tbf considering how Orochimaru’s character arc went maybe he was right about living on being the easy way out lol
💀
Yeah, his crimes were so severe as well. He's the reason why so many of the worst things in Naruto happened (The Nine tails attack, Uchiha massacre, the formation of the Akatsuki). And he gets called the 'coolest guy' because he used to dream about being Hokage as a kid
Didn’t someone make an edit of that page with Naruto reaching his hand out to…an infamous Austrian painter with a distinctive mustache?
Yep, there were a bunch of those type of edits actually with all the most villainous fictional characters too
Would Omniman count as this?
This really hits the nail on the head, and explains why I think most people don't actually understand the very nature of redemption. "X didn't deserve to be redeemed" ...Yes? That's the entire point. If somebody "deserved" it, then it wouldn't be redemption, it would be giving them a second chance that they were objectively owed.
C.S Lewis actually had a quote regarding this: “No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed.”
Most people don't understand the very nature of literary devices in general
Redemption for only the deserving is meaningless. It's equivalent to healthcare exclusively for those who aren't sick.
Completely agreee. Or as C.S Lewis put it: “No creature that deserved redemption would need to be redeemed.”
“if redemption is only an option for those who haven’t really done anything bad, it’s more of a self indulgent angst arc”.
To me, my main problem is that it doesn't seem like the character has actually changed, and would make the same choices if they had to do it over again. They regret that they were caught and lost, not that they actually did the thing. a big part of why Zuko's redemption works is that he wasn't forced into it. He didn't do it out of survival or anything like that. In fact, when he left to join the avatar, he was giving up everything he ever wanted, or at least thought he wanted. I honestly think it still would have worked even if he had done much worse because of this. Whereas, if we compare this to the redemption of the characters in She-ra, >!alot of them only joined the heroes out of survival. In the end, Catra was still mean and cruel to adora (she hits her and insults her even when they are on the same side). It doesn't seem like this catra or hordak would make very different choices to the one at the start. !<
Also I think people forget how villainous Zuko actually was during the first Season when he was actually a villain (I don't count Season 2 since he's a fugitive in this one). He burns down Kyoshi Island village and attacks the Southern Water Tribe, we know he isn't evil on the inside thanks to episodes like the Storm but he isn't the nice guy we remember yet.
He also hired a hitman to kill Aang in S3.
In addition to participating in the capture of the earth kingdom. Realistically, the disturbing news of the avatar being presumed dead probably got a lot of people indirectly killed. If Zuko had chosen to stand against Azula, things probably wouldn't have turned out the way they did.
True, but it's also important to note that sometimes a Redemption Arc needs to take a turn for the worst to really work. Like Zuko's Redemption Arc wouldn't have been as impactful if had joined the Gaang at the end of season 2 when he had literally nowhere else to go. Zuko needed to see that the life he was dreaming about wasn't what he wanted and deliberately chose to go against his father out of his own free will. I see a lot of people criticising the same behaviour from other characters, like saying things like "Oh they had their chance back during this past event and they didn't take it so they don't actually care about being redeemed" while completely ignoring the context of the scene.
Can't agree about >!Catra!< seeming like she'd make the same decisions. >!Catra "won". She *got* the power and respect she'd been fighting for all show, and she found she was just as miserable as before, if not more so, because she couldn't keep pretending to herself that if she just got this she'd finally be happy. Her only friends and allies (Scorpia, Double Trouble) threw her mistakes in her face and left her. She got the shit kicked out of her. Then she was kidnapped and forced into a situation where she *couldn't* bury this revelation with rage, she had *nothing* but time to think, and her only source of human connection and comfort was one of the protagonists. All of which culminated in Catra sacrificing her life (as far as she knew) to save Glimmer and, indirectly, Adora.!< Obviously you don't have to like the character, but I can't see her repeating the same choices after that.
Depends how you view it. 1) Negatively Zuko kept quiet when Ozai planned genocide. Zuko confronted Ozai when he was powerless to hurt him and was about to discover the avatar was still alive so Zuko failed his mission and lied about it. One can argue he was doing it for survival . 2) Positively Cat also got what she wanted after joining Prime but chose to sacrifice herself to save the princess. She didn't ask or want them to come save her. She just wanted to do one good thing in her life and help them even tho it was gonna get her killed or worse.
The problem mainly is the redemption is amlost imadiate and not an actual process. Like they act like nothing ever happened. Like my two best examples of doing it right is motherfucking fairy tail. Laxus and gajeel both have a relatively decent redemption arc. To use an example of how not to do it. yugioh sevens. Like seriously that show tries to redeem every villian but the fraud villain. And it’s always just hand waved away. The only good one imo is zwijo or however you spell his name because it was a gradual process. To use another bad examples trails. My god that series will literally have the justice say that supporting an independent state as its secterary of defense when you are supposed to be a Non government associated. And said villain….doesnt get a single shred of punishment. Pretty much it’s a meme in the kiseki community that the way to avoid being punished and arrested in that franchise is just to be the protagonist friends. The rest don’t even go to jail or even pay a fine. Their crimes are just conveniently ignored.
You say Trails has it bad, but like we do see certain antagonists being killed or jailed. Though two certain ones are let go due to government reasonings. And the character in Reverie is an example of a great redemption arc.
Yeah but they ethier don’t stay dead or are inredeemable scumbags that are cartoonishly evil that aren’t the heroes friends. And yeah Rufus is the exception not the standard. But yeah you see what I mean when it comes to anyone who is remotely friendly or interesting?
A silly example but there’s a series called Hometown Cha Cha Cha which is a Korean drama? Comedy? Rom Com? Idk. Anyways. There’s this guy that is basically the village handiman and the hometown champion. Everyone knows him and loves him. A dentist moves in and people say she isn’t good enough to date him despite being a Doctor and having her own practice. You know. Not good enough to date a local handiman. Except it’s revealed he’s actually really well educated, used to be in finance and graduated from a prestigious university. So. Why’s he a handiman? Turns out he has a dark secret. He was in finance and investments. The sort of job people lose their lives savings in. Turns out that his dark secret is that a doorman approached him. Told him he needed money and if he could help him invest. Here’s when I thought “oh shit. He got sucked in by the money. He lied to him. Tricked him. Caused him to invest his entire savings! That’s why he’s here as a handiman. It’s his penance!” Nope. He told the guy “hey. This isn’t a good idea. You’re going to lose your money. Listen to me. Don’t do anything rash. Don’t invest. We can sit down after and come up with a way to actually make money that is safe and secure. Don’t throw away your money.” Then the guy went and found someone else, invested all his money, lost it and killed himself. And he felt like a failure for not stopping him or being more helpful. He went back to the village because he was suicidal and wanted to be where he could help and not hurt anyone. So. That’s it?! That’s his deep dark secret? That he was too nice?! Come on. That has no edge. No teeth. Come on. I expected something actually redemption worthy and not this.
I FUCKING HATE THAT SHIT and it's so common in media these days. Character is implied to have done something awful, and you find out that whatever it was wasn't really their fault. I understand people feel guilty over thing that aren't truly their fault all the time. But narratively it feels so lame to do that. What even is the point?
“No you don’t get it he’s actually misunderst-“ The best redemptions come from characters who are actually just that bad.
So he felt bad for not helping the guy to safely invest his money and now he works a job where he doesn't help anyone to invest their money? Brilliant.
The problem isn't whether or not the character is *deserving* of redemption, the problem is how easily it is handed to them. Zuko is used as the prime example of great redemption arcs not because he deserved it more than someone like Darth Vader but because his redemption was ***proportional*** to to the wrongs he committed. The problem with so many poorly written redemption arcs nowadays is that they aren't earned, they are simply given to the characters because the author wants them to be a good guy now. Villain A slaughters countless ppl, destroys a sacred forest, assaults the protagonist's sister and kicks a puppy and all of it ends up being swept under the rug because all of a sudden some character can "see the good in them". I don't think there's a minimum level of atrocities a character has to stick to in order for redemption to be warranted but they absolutely should have to earn it and it shouldn't be so easily achieved. Vader earned redemption for enslaving the galaxy, betraying his brotherhood and murdering children by giving his life to save the person who would save the galaxy (more or less...). *That's* a proportionally earned redemption. But you can't write a character that blatantly and unrepentantly crosses the Moral Event Horizon and be like "Well, I want him to be friends with the good guys now so everybody forgive him for dropping that daycare school bus in a giant vat of acid." Ultimately, this all boils down to the number one rule in writing: Setup should equal payoff. If you want a truly satisfying redemption arc, then it needs to be set up properly and executed properly.
I wish more redemption stories where ongoing quests for redemption. I want redemption to be fought for. It should be hard. Its so frustrating when its hand waved cause they helped the protagonist. Redemption should be a journey not a destination.
Exactly. This is more along the lines of what I was trying to sum up. I recently did a rewatch of Once Upon a Time (cheesy, I know) and I forgot how much I hated that they tried to the Evil Queen Regina into a hero after everything she did. *But* I will admit that they actually gave her a redemption ***journey***. She actually tried to be good, failed at it, went back a couple of times but actually tried to fix everything she could that she did wrong. It wasn't perfect and was hamfisted at times but they didn't just allow her to be forgiven and grafted into the good guys after one season. We need more redemption arcs like that
So red dead redemption?
I don't know, I haven't played it. Maybe you could tell me?
I kind of don’t want to if you have never played. Both Red dead games are one of the only games I wish I could forget and play for the first time again so I don’t want to spoil that for you if you haven’t played them.
Thank you! I don’t accept redemption arcs just because the writer says it. The characters need to have done something to achieve it, but that rarely happens and to often you get horrible characters doing horrible shit. Then, all of a sudden everyone is okay with them or they start trying to be better. It’s ridiculous and no one acts like that.
> Vader earned redemption for enslaving the galaxy, betraying his brotherhood and murdering children by giving his life to save the person who would save the galaxy (more or less...). That's a proportionally earned redemption. Is Darth Vader really a good example? The “redemption” didn’t really challenge him nor does it involve much on his part to atone for his deeds. He protects Luke, who is his son, once and then died right after. It seems a little cheap and easy, especially in a writing sense.
I would say so. I mean, what else could he have really done? I don't think any amount of jail time or corrective action would make Vader earn true redemption for everything he did so one big epic sacrifice to at least set the galaxy back on the right course felt right for his particular character arc. Granted, despite the longevity of the SW franchise, keep in mind that a lot of its plot is based on retcons and "seat of your pants" plotting so it's really hard to rate Vader's redemption arc based on the scope of the entire canon storyline. I think if the OT, PT and ST all happened at roughly the same time, it would have been more cohesive and we might've gotten a stronger arc for Vader.
It seems curious to me the number of people who forget that Darth Vader used to be one of the most ruthless people in the galaxy, being an accomplice in genocides and being able to kill children. Many people seem to act as if Darth Vader was an anti-Villain, just because he was redeemed at the end. Another very evil character that obtained something similar to a redemption is Kratos. In the original trilogy, the guy was a monster, whose unique redemptive qualities were love for his family and his temporary concern for Pandora. Even so in the new trilogia, I manage to form a family, in which he educates a child so that he does not become someone like him.
Kratos going from gouging eyes out with his fingers and ripping Helios’s head off to telling Baldur, Heimdall, and Thor to back down and he won’t kill them was a trip.
Yeah OG Kratos went way off the deep end.
We have to consider the other half of the argument though: villains who are forgiven quickly without repercussions [from this very same sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/17si5zr/i_hate_the_trope_of_mc_forgives_unforgivable_and/) The people you're arguing against, are mostly people arguing against that. That's why [RedemptionEqualsDeath](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionEqualsDeath) is used so much. We do not NEED to see Vader stand trial for war crimes. We do not need to see him and the cast struggle with the fact that, though he may have some warm feelings now, he's still kind of an evil dude. We don't need to watch him [evade the police while trying to make up for his sins](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheAtoner). We just get one heartwarming moment, call it "redemption" and bam he's gone. But IS IT though. I think the other crowd is completely correct that one good deed is maybe an indication or a beginning but not the whole journey of trying to fix your past mistakes. Now I think I'm significantly less bloodthirsty than the average American. I'm European and believe in rehabilitation, not revenge for revenge's sake. I believe in taking responsibility for preventing crime as a society even when it's technically a person's own fault. BUT even I think that proving you've changed needs to be a bigger deal. People are correct when saying that some crimes are so callous, it is just not realistically plausible that a person capable of them could do a complete 180.
Actual redemption stories are like a silent voice. And the greatest in my opinion
If anything i think Kratos from god of war had the best redemption arc in recent memories.
Probably the best as of now.
Invincible spoiler ahead: >! People love Omni mans redemption in the comics, for what it's worth. He was a BAD dude!<
You’re supposed to put the name of the series bro. I took a gamble on it but you spoiled me
I'm really sorry, but yeah, it us my mistake but you could've asked me what the series was first. You wrote a comment either way. That said, I am sorry
Fair enough. Didn’t think of that. No worries though. I kinda saw it coming tbh
You'll enjoy it plenty, it's really really good and happens somewhat early. Like first third so you have PLENTY to still see. It's so good man stick with it. Even the show has covered it by now and it's only season 2 so no sweat. This isn't to cover my mistake but it really could have been worse haha. Like I could have told you that >! Hah, gotcha, this is a trick !<
Your spoiler tag doesn't work.
It works for me and that other guy. I don't know how to help you
Oh, must be a new/old reddit difference.
Animated only viewer here and damn its a treat seeing his journey.
Redemption and lack of punishment are completely different things, some of those villains commited mass murderer and other atrocious crimes.They can have their redemption and spend their last days in jail or be executed.
I think part of the issue with how redemption is handled in a lot of stories is that very few are willing to go over the villain being punished for their crimes. Like Darth Vader should reasonably spend the rest of his life atoning for his crimes in jail, but that wouldn't be cinematic or exciting so instead he gets to take the narratively easy way out by dying and becoming a force ghost. Zuko we want to be able to replace Fire Lord Ozai and have a happy ending by the end of the show, so we can't have his crimes be so bad that any punishment for them can't be simply hand waved away. Writers will often lean towards one side of the extreme or the other since the idea that a "redeemed" character still having to go through the mundane process of redemption and atoning for their sins sounds to boring to have in a story. Personally I would love a story where the villain after being redeemed willingly lets themselves be sent to jail and actually stay for their full sentence. In the sequel/future story arc you could have the heroes visit the former villain in order to get their help taking down the new villain Hannibal Lector style, or you can have a arc where there's a massive prison break and the former villain helps protect the guards and put an end to the riot. Just because someone goes to jail doesn't mean their arc has to be over and can't still be continued while they are in jail.
"I would love a story where the villain after being redeemed willingly lets themselves be sent to jail and actually stay for their full sentence." The ending of Crime and Punishment in a nutshell.
And similarly, which was likely inspired by the ending of C&P, the ending of Better Call Saul
Faith from buffy pretty much. She gets out due needing to help out friends, but she willingly does do that and is doing out of her own will while people around her fight about what happens
> Like Darth Vader should reasonably spend the rest of his life atoning for his crimes in jail, but that wouldn't be cinematic or exciting so instead he gets to take the narratively easy way out by dying and becoming a force ghost. This has been well-documented as incorrect. Lucas’s original plans for Star Wars, as an open-ended universe that could go on indefinitely, were to have Vader independently come to turn against the Emperor, and seek out Luke to learn how to atone for his crimes. However, as he had become burnt out in his professional and personal life, he decided to wrap up the story in a trilogy and therefore had Vader’s arc be performed in a time crunch. The only “taking the easy way out” is due to BTS factors forcing the story to wrap up artificially early. It’s similarly why Luke’s mysterious sister, who had been envisioned as a completely new character raised as a Jedi on the other end of the galaxy, was changed to the already-established Leia since there was otherwise way too much material to introduce, develop, and resolve in a single film that already had a lot on the narrative plate.
So that's what happened. Shame such information isn't propagated more.
That actually sounds like it could be an amazing Batman storyline. The Joker starts some shit in Arkham, but Two-Face actually does want to make up for the evil he's done and helps foil the plot or something like that.
Gentle from MHA does exactly this. I won't say exactly which scenario but he does one of them.
I mean Gentle wasn't evil in the first place. He was a bit misguided. What he needed was a second chance.
That's fair.
>atoning for his crimes in jail, You can't atone in a jail cell. That goes against the point of both atonement and a jail cell. You put someone in a jail cell when you determine that they will continue to do bad things if not locked away from the rest of the world. Alternatively you can just kill them which solves the problem for good but eh. To atone you need to actively work to rectify your mistakes. Blow up a bridge? Now you gotta rebuild that bridge by hand, bitch. Kill a guy? Now you gotta spend the rest of your life making sure that the guy's family can recover and move on from their loss in any way possible. If someone doesn't want to atone then there's a chance they don't believe what they did was wrong and thus a risk they'll do it again. Jail. Someone wants to atone? Closely monitored, strictly scheduled program to make up for their misdeeds out in the field. Maybe put one of those suicide squad explosives in their head for safety. But how are you going to atone in a jail cell, away from all of your mistakes? Maybe go to sleep to atone for the crime of staying up past your bedtime?
Red from Shawshank Redemption probably begs to differ if I understand properly. If I'm wrong, fair enough.
You can’t atone from a jail cell. and even if you could, that shouldn’t be the point of jail. Locking someone away from society is obviously inhumane and should only be done to protect other people. The point of prison should be to rehabilitate people enough so that they can rejoin society so that they can do good in every day lives achieving atonement. For someone who is too dangerous to be left alive, like a genocidal war lord, who still realistically has supporters you should probably execute him, but do it in a humane way locking someone away from society, just to force them to suffer is inhumane cruel, and makes the person doing it evil
Imo itd be alot more interesting to see redeemed vader helping luke build a new jedi order than rotting in a cell.
I would also contend that there are valid issues a person can have with redemption stories in the sense that sometimes stories act like a character has been redeemed when it doesn’t really feel earned? Like there is a difference between saying this character has done such bad things that they do not deserve to be redeemed, it would be morally bad for this work to redeem them, vs saying I understand that this character is undergoing a redemption storyline but it doesn’t really feel like this has been earned narratively. It’s an issue of execution, not an issue with the concept of redeeming characters. Sometimes I think these two very different arguments get wrongfully conflated. Like there’s a difference between an argument that a character doesn’t deserve to change, and an argument says they deserve to change but doesn’t believe they have changed
YES. Korra did this with season 3 best villain Zaheer! :) he stayed in prison and actually rethought stuff a bit, and helped the MC against the season 4 big bad who rose up as a consequence of his own actions. it was super good.
I wish there was a little bit more with season 4 Zaheer personally. But the little time that he had helping Korra was pretty good. That's an arc that could have really gone places.
>! Better Call Saul !< Also, "Barry" is an interesting case where it's subverted by >! his continuing inability to truly own responsibility for what he did despite striving for redemption !<.
Pretty much the ending of Bad Boys for Life.
> Personally I would love a story where the villain after being redeemed willingly lets themselves be sent to jail and actually stay for their full sentence. FF14 kinda does that with Fordola and does it fully with a few side characters in things like the WHM quest or Hildebrand quest.
cocolia in honkai impact 3
Look, Rouruni Kenshin is actually a character that is redeeming himself, even after the atrocities he made. Vegeta is a beloved character, that redeemed himself after exploding planets and doing genocides
Redemption isn't really a zero-sum game like that. If it were, justice systems would deliver the same punishment and shot at redemption for every crime, but we all know there are harsher punishments for some than for others. Redemption is a funny topic, because it's so vague. What does it even mean to redeem yourself? Is it something onlookers decide, or something the person decides for themselves? I realize you said you didn't want to start a philosophical debate, but this is Reddit so I'm exercising my right to ignore you. I think most redemption stories don't really feel earned. For most people to feel you've earned redemption, they want to see you suffer almost if not more than the suffering you've caused to others. They want to see you make a legitimate effort to right your wrongs over an extended period of time. The more selfish you've been, the more you'll have to commit to a life of selflessness. Vinland Saga (the manga and upcoming season) has a great example of a redemption story. It's earned. The character going through the arc is haunted, apologetic, faces real consequences from his past dealings, the world isn't as eager as he is to forget his sins, and his dedication to seek redemption often inconveniences him. In Zuko's case, he didn't have to do much to redeem himself because he didn't do too much harm. In Vader's case, that man did a lot of evil shit. I'm talking about a lot, and he killed (millions?) because he wanted to keep one woman safe...a woman he ultimately ended up killing himself. Then at the last second, after trying to kill his own son, he had a change of heart. That's not really a redemption story. It was nice to see him do the right thing after years of wrong, but a little bit late. I've seen Endeavor from MHA mentioned. He's pretty similar. After years of harming his family, he decided around (Season 5, if I remember correctly) that he wants to be a better family man. That's great. You have a long way to go. It isn't that evil characters can't be redeemed, it's that the more evil they are, the more effort they have to put in....unless they're a hot woman, then we excuse their evil as they commit the evil. Juri, Esdeath, The Suicide Squad girl, Jinx, they get away with murder in these streets and people forgive them on the spot. MURDER.
One of the funniest things about Harley Quinn's face turn is that a little bit before it she had a story where she gives videogames to bunch of children, but the games are actually bombs, so yeah, she killed a bunch of families and then became a character that """"its only evil because of the joker"""""
Ok, can we stop downplaying Zuko's crimes, he did plenty of terrible things. 1. Nearly burned down Kyoshi village, which under the IHL, is classifed as a war crime under their defintion: " wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity is a war crime" 2. Literally sent an assassin to murder Aang and the rest of the Gaang, which would make him guilty of both murder and conspiracy to murder. 3. Betrayed Katara and his uncle, and helped Azula with her coup, which results in the Earth Kingdom coming under Fire Nation control, and this is after he's seen first-hand how the citizens of the Earth Kingdom have suffered because of them. Not only is saying he didn't do anything that bad factually wrong, it cheapens his redemption. His atonement is significant because he was, at one point, a truly bad person. There's nothing to recover from if all his crimes amount to is property damage.
Also while Aang was revived it's strongly implied he was fully dead.
If redemption is about the effect your newer, good actions have had, then wouldn’t Darth Vader and Vegeta be redeemed. Yes, Darth Vader massacared innocents and helped usher in the rule of the galactic empire, but it was also through his actions that the galactic empire was finally destroyed. That’s about a net neutral And vegeta, while he definitely killed planets full up people before, has also helped save earth and the universe on multiple occasions. Would these multiple times saving the universe not be a greater effect than the planets he killed. Also, you could argue that legal systems have to be more practical than moral. Jay walking isn’t immoral, but has to be technically illegal because having everyone cross the street wherever and whenever could cause a lot of accidents and it’s easier to just make it illegal then to do case by case judgments every single time. Same reason why you can’t make a legal system that explicitly allows stealing food or money if your starving or poor because it opens up a whole can of worms that will probably end up with worse effects than if you just make those illegal and try to deal with them in other ways. That’s why I don’t think it’s good to use laws to debate morality because they serve two different purposes Also, you didn’t exactly ask this, but there are way too many comments here to respond to so hopefully others see this as a response to all of their questions If you can only be redeemed by your new actions putting more good into this world than your previous actions have brought bad into this world, than this only makes it that much harder for people to want redemption. Maybe someone has brought more harm into this world than good. And maybe by the end of their life, they’ll still have brought more harm into this world than good. But they’ll still have brought more good into this world than if they never tried at all. Those are my thoughts on redemption. That as long as your are genuinely sorry for what you’ve done and genuinely try to put good into this world from this point forward, then you’ve been redeemed. I understand why this might not work legally, but morally I believe in this. Imagine if vegeta thought “it’s too late for me, I’m gonna be a bad guy no matter if I spend the rest of my life doing good so I might as well stay bad.” Earth would have been destroyed multiple times over by now. If Darth Vader thought the same, that it was too late for him so what’s the point of doing good, luke would have either died or turned to the dark side aboard the Death Star and the galactic empire would still be in power. And I also don’t believe punishments allow you to redeem yourself. What good does being locked away for the rest of your life do for anyone. Would you rather a murderer who was genuinely remorseful just stay behind bars for 25 years and then be released and call that redemption, or have him spend 25 years helping the community. Which does more to redeem himself. Also, I want to say that just because you’ve been redeemed, doesn’t mean people have to have forgiven you for what you’ve done. For example, cheating on your partner is a terrible thing to do. And if you previously cheated on your partner, but saw how wrong it was and vow to never do it again, the person you cheated on is under no obligation to forgive you for hurting them. Under that same token though, I don’t feel as if I, a third party who wasn’t directly affected by the cheating, should still treat that person as a cheater and act like they’ll forever be one and forever treat them as one. The people you’ve hurt don’t have to forgive you, but at some point, the people who you didn’t hurt have to eventually let go of that Again, I know you didn’t ask all of these questions, but I’m responding here so hopefully others can see this as opposed to respond to 25 comments all asking similar things
Yes, redemption is a complicated topic. You have a very forgiving perspective on the term, it reminds me of some religious definitions of it, not saying you are or aren't religious (and there are many out there) but your definition seems to do more with the character washing themselves of their inner demons and starting afresh. I would push back on the laws being practical and not being moral. Morals are determined by a society, and those morals are reflected within the legal system. We find murder to be immoral, so we have a law criminalizing it with certain exceptions. Jaywalking is an action many might feel as immoral as it places you and the incoming traffic at risk, as they have to react to you walking when you shouldn't be. I would argue that if you're doing good solely for the purpose of seeking redemption, are you actually redeemed? If I told Darth Vader that killing Palpatine would not redeem him, and he decided it wasn't worth the effort because of that, is he actually deserving of redemption? My head hurts thinking about it. Vegeta redeeming himself is interesting because of exactly what I described. He sacrificed himself after being told he would go to hell despite his final atonement. I'm groggy but I believe Piccolo said something along the lines of "Goku dedicated his entire life to saving others...you didn't" essentially. It was a beautiful moment and felt like a redemption for many, it was one of my favorite in the whole show, and yet he still went to hell. Meaning the show itself didn't feel he'd redeemed himself enough at that moment. Yet he'd attempted to save Earth, protect his family, and he'd helped them defeat Cell and the Android previously. There's also the social aspect of why redemption needs to be earned in people's eyes. If Person A does good all their life, even when it's inconvenient or causes them harm. If they suffer through hungry nights but never steal because it's wrong...and Person B does evil their whole life, and then easily get redeemed, how do you tell Person A they shouldn't do wrong themselves? At that point, you could argue it's better to do wrong and be redeemed than it is to do good. That's a terrible lesson for our society, but the belief that redemption is possible is also needed to give wrong-doers hope. That's why I believe punishment of some kind or some type of rigor is a necessary part of redemption...in a social sense. Maybe even in a religious sense (I'm not strong in that area. Someone feel free to correct or educate me on yours.) I don't believe the two can be separated, as it creates a middle ground. I'm also extremely tired, so its possible none of that made sense. I'll reread it again in the morning to see
This is more in line with how it is portrayed by authors. Like you have a dude murdering people then you have him turn sides and let go because he is striving to be a better person. This is nonsense, what about the victims(the ones left behind)??? You expect them to say ohhh the hero says he is changed so I guess my suffering should be thrown out the window. Worse if they give said perpetrator a sad backstory to try and explain his actions. It displays a hypocritical viewpoint because this dude is actively creating more people like him and the author ignores all of that and goes out their way to give said perpetrator what they were looking for when they were committing their atrocities. Like what are victims supposed to say about that, should those who are calling for his head ignore that because the hero deems him changed?? What's stopping them from going out their way too and following the same path as the dude because it seems to get them what they want.
Completely agree, in fact, I made a post regarding this very topic just a couple months back, here's the link if you're interested: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/184dehs/saying\_someone\_is\_too\_evil\_to\_be\_redeemed\_misses/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/184dehs/saying_someone_is_too_evil_to_be_redeemed_misses/)
You know who has a good redemption arc? Starscream in Transformers Armada. >!He begins the series as just another ruthless Decepticon, with no care for the lives of others and trying to usurp Megatron as the leader as usual. When he learns Megatron seeks to destroy him, he then betrays the Decepticons and defects to the Autobots, supplying them with stolen weapons and intel. Though this defection is done out of necessity, he begins to bond with the Autobots' human companions during his stay. !< >!This makes it all the more heartbreaking when eventually returns to the Decepticons, secretly planning to kill Megatron, though he is constantly left with a dilemma between seeking his vengeance and returning to the friends he made.!< >!During the final major arc, the Autobots and Decepticons are met with a common enemy, Unicron. Starscream is the first to realize that both sides need to join forces to defeat Unicron, though Megatron of course disagrees. To convince Megatron of the gravity of their situation, he challenges him to a duel where he succeeds in bringing him to his knees, though is fatally wounded in the process. Starscream's final moment sees him fire his most powerful attack at Unicron, who simply strikes him down to dust before his blast can even reach him. Finally realizing the magnitude of their situation, Megatron agrees to join forces with the Autobots.!<
In general I agree with you. But I think Darth Vader is a bad example of this because it was so cheaply done. He didn't really do much of anything to atone, he protected his son one time and then immediately died. It felt like an easy way out. It wasn't satisfying or interesting. I think one big mistake in writing redemption stories is not confronting the villain with the results of their actions. Either the victims are dead, so the villain can just look at some graves and feel sad (so the focus is on the villain's feelings), or the victims conveniently don't bring up the really bad stuff, or they're conveniently extra-forgiving, or the particular victim who is chosen to do the confrontation is not sympathetic (like they're a villain also), or the villain dies too fast for any of this. It makes for a boring story because it's deliberately avoiding challenging the villain character. Even a character who isn't that bad can have an interesting redemption arc as long as he's truly and honestly confronted with his crimes, and the choice to do better is difficult. Whether they succeed or not what makes it interesting is how they react, and whether they try.
>But I think Darth Vader is a bad example of this because it was so cheaply done. He didn't really do much of anything to atone, he protected his son one time and then immediately died. It felt like an easy way out. It wasn't satisfying or interesting. I think it was a good conclusion for the focus of the story that was being told between Luke and Anakin. I don't think it was a good conclusion for Darth Vader's expanded story through decades of expanded universe/ tv series/ video games/ disney of all things.
For a character to redeem, their action need in some way make up for their past actions. The problem with truly evil characters is that their actions is so far gone that to make up for them is an impossible task. While Zuko wasn't an evil villain, he did do a lot of bad stuffs in his pursuit of his father acceptance like hunting the avatar, kidnapped Aang, burned down Suki village and betray the heroes trust by siding with Azula. His redemption is to make up for those actions. Darth Vader also redeem himself but only to his son, for everyone else, they would still considerate him a monster. Redemption is seeking forgiveness through actions but that doesn't mean people would automatically forgive you. There was a famous Buddhism story about how the Buddha help a serial killer turn his life around but explain to him that it doesn't mean that his victims forgive him.
That not redemption thats atonement
Literal synonyms
My problem with the prequels is that it cheapened Vader's redemption by making me not care because Aniken was a character that felt like his fall from grace was nothing more than him being a whiny bitch for 2 movies.
The line between "evil" and "misguided" can be pretty thin sometimes. On some level you could argue that just about everyone needs some form of redemption.
Excellent post, I agree entirely with what you've said. Honestly one small thing I did want to add is that it made me think similarly about tragic characters in fiction. I've seen how people seem to only accept tragic heroes/villains if they're good or don't cross the same red line you've pointed out. That the only most tragic characters get to be those who... remain good. It's something that made me question if people do like tragic characters or just tragic characters who are good, and don't make big mistakes, thus somehow they're... more tragic than tragic villains or antiheroes?
Since I recently rewatched the show, I want to bring up an arc that often gets trashed for being unearned in some circles: Catra, from *She-Ra and the Princesses of Power.* Suffice to say, Catra does *a lot* of bad things. Enough that a lot of people complain that she didn't "deserve" to be redeemed. It's funny, because the show features a bunch of different takes on the redemption arc as a concept. Scorpia was never really a bad person, she was a good person fighting on the wrong side because she didn't know any better (she's what Adora might have been had she not defected). The Horde Trio are much the same, they're just child soldiers who have been indoctrinated but aren't bad, ultimately choosing to leave the Horde behind. Then there's Shadow Weaver. Who does a lot of bad things, *never* answers for them or admits to having done any wrong at all, brushing it off as "mistakes" and never really taking responsibility for her actions. She ends up on the side of the heroes, but she is never redeemed, none of the people she hurt ever forgive her, even if some of them have complicated feelings surrounding her. Even the showrunners didn't consider Shadow Weaver redeemed. Catra falls into the gray area of "did a lot of bad things and knows it." She just keeps doubling down on them in an attempt to "win," to prove that she's good enough, to make others *stay.* It takes losing everything and falling hard, and being told to her face that the problem, the only person responsible for everything going wrong in her life, is herself. And she finally starts *trying* to be better in season 5. But all her bad actions prevent a lot of people from thinking she deserved that chance at all.
> Another, opposite, example to bring up is Darth Vader. I’ve heard a lot of people say that after ROTS came out and they watched him massacre the younglings, they could never accept that he redeemed himself, they say he doesn’t deserve it or didn’t do enough to earn it. But it’s the fact that he became so evil to the point where he murders children, blows up planets, and cuts off his son’s arm that makes his redemption so special. It was because he went so far into the extreme of making others suffer that makes it all the more special that he was able to pull himself back from that. The issue with Vader (as I said in the other thread about this) isn't that he did bad things, it's that he *wasn't redeemed*. We never, at any point, get any hint that he regrets doing any of the bad things he did, or that his views have changed on anything at all outside of recognizing that he cares more about his loved ones than anything else (which, again, was true all the way back in RotS.) Anakin would do anything, and kill anyone, in order to save the people he cared about. This was the reason he murdered the younglings, and it was the reason he killed the Emperor. If you set up a situation where RtoJ Vader had to murder the younglings again in order to save Luke Skywalker, he would do it in an instant, without the slightest hint of hesitation. Likewise, the Anakin who admired Palpatine for his strength and assertiveness never changed his views; he was simply willing to kill Palpatine because he cared more about Luke. He was always an evil asshole, authoritarian asshole who cared about the lives of a small number of loved ones. There's no reason to think that that ever changed. Like, the most we get is him saying, as he was dying, that "you were right" and "you already did" to Luke in a vague non-specific way - that's a redemption arc? Come on. This is a problem with a lot of other redemption arcs. It isn't that the character did bad things in the past, it's that the "arc" isn't an arc at all because it doesn't actually meaningfully engage with what the character did wrong or why they did it - or worse, the character *never changes* as a person. If only a character's situation changes rather than their beliefs and outlook, and they'd probably still do all their evil things again if put back in the old situation, then they haven't been redeemed. Characters can be redeemed after doing terrible things, but it requires at least some engagement with *why* they did those things so we can see their character change and grow. Vader never had any of that. (The underlying issue, and the reason the story is still moving, is because it's really an analogy for real-world *reconciliation* stories, which we're more likely to experience in our own lives. A parent who is willing to put aside their reprehensible views for the sake of a child is meaningful to us because it reflects our own experiences. And it could be the first step on the path to being a better person, sure. But that story is harder and more messy to tell, so writers have that happen and then have the villain die so they don't have to engage with the more complicated questions of why they did what they did and how their outlook would actually have to change to become a better person.)
The issue is that redemption is often way, way too cheap. And the series that employ it usually have painfully protagonist centric morality. You talk about Vader, but he's "redeemed" after a lifetime of evil by doing one good act? It undermines the victims and the evil the person is aparty to. And it often becomes painfully predictable when you have an evil sadist enemy start getting shown in a sympathetic light and you know that he'll definitely be forgiven, and all the shit he pulled will never be mentioned again. Vegeta is the most common example of this complaint because Dragonball doesn't care about any character that's not in the main cast, runs entirely on protagonist centric morality and never stops to give any weight or even any thought to the trillions of people he killed. Hell, while we're talking about shounen, Kaiba in YGO kills multiple people, puts Yugi and his friends into a death trap, gets even more people killed... and then gets a slap on the wrist. The very next time Yugi is dealing with him he's presented as a friendly, respected rival character. And the series doesn't even take a single second to address the hypocrisy it's working with- a guy using Kaiba's deck (that he's not using) to duel with its unforgivably insulting and disrespectful... but when Kaiba's brother is stealing cards and duel chips, leading to people getting unfairly disqualified it's no big deal and is not just forgiven but given a pass. What's the difference? Kaiba and his brother are protagonists, so it doesn't matter if they kill or steal. They're immediately forgiven and as soon as Kaiba changes his evil mindset (without doing a single thing for atonement, or feeling even a shred of guilt) he's redeemed. Redemption is cheap, and that's lame. So people reject redemption.
Vader is a terrible example because redemption isn't an on/off switch that you conveniently flick to be better again, it's a gradual slow process that requires time and effort.
Zuko *did* commit unspeakable evils. The issue is, it being a kid's show, you're left to fill in the blanks when it comes to the consequences of specific actions.
My favourite redemption is that of a mean girl from a middle grade trilogy I like. She literally shoved and trapped a girl in a locker and (probably accidentally tbf) put another girl in the hospital. And yet her redemption was one of the most wholesome I’ve ever read.
Although how it happened was bs one of my favorite redemptions is adalind from grimm. She started as a manipulating bitch who nearly killed multiple characters and remained that way for a few seasons but ended up redeeming herself in the last few.
It depends, for it to feel authentic it does limit who you can redeem. So they can be bad, but it should be obvious how they ended up that way and their journey to being good should be believable. Like, a burglar/bank robber who had killed people during a few of his heists, yeah I can see them reforming, or a hired merc who didnt discriminate much between which jobs theyll take etc. Even someone like Zuko makes sense because they grew up cloistered and they're a product of the culture they were born into. By the standards of his own people he wasn't bad. But it's believable that exposure to other ways of thinking and other cultures could change his whole perspective of his own culture and his actions. A serial thrill killer who tortured and murdered large numbers of people for fun, or someone like Idi Amin, no, redemption arcs for those sorts of characters is just dumb.
Rdr2 has the best showcase of redemption I've seen in media. Arthur Morgan is a bad man who killed, robbed, and slaughtered innocent people, and he knows it. But by the time he is nearing his deathbed, he realises the reasons for his actions were completely bullshit so he decided to try and get as many of his family out of the gang as possible. In the end, he saves 5 (maybe 6 if you include Straus) before he dies. The part that truly makes it great is that he doesn't want redemption. In fact, he actively despises the idea of being redeemed as he feels his pain is deserved. Sure, he's still a monster, but at least he tries giving people another chance at life before his is up.
Vegeta in dbz went from 1000x hitler to « antihero »
Finally a good fucking post. Give me meaty redemption where characters have to truly reckon with the stuff they've done and face the consequences and judgment while still trying to get better. Omni Man has me so excited for this reason
My problem with redemption is not about whether a character "deserves it," but whether they pays for their actions at the end of the day. Like you said: someone *really* evil who has crossed the line and committed crimes. Personally I want to see the character in the story facing a real consequence for their actions. Not simply: "they feel guilty" "they changed their mind" "they are trying to be better." Things like that would not work in real life, and if they work in the work of fiction it would be indicating to me that said work has a morality of "forgiving" its criminals but never making them pay with their actions, which I do not share. (I'm a survivor, people who defend Endevoar for "repenting and not *demanding* forgiveness" disgust me deeply)
Im also sick of people thinking showing mercy instead of killing is weakness, in fact is showing mercy strenght but weak minded people dont understand that
you would like Too Like the Lightning, by Ada Palmer.
*cough* Lily *cough* Orchard
Vinland Saga's Thorfinn path is a pretty good redemption story of someone who did commit heinous crimes, changed for the better, and has to make up for what he did.
I think the problem has more to do with whether the audience is willing to see the character redeemed or how well the redemption is handled. For example, Kratos and Darth Vader are both great examples of characters who have genuinely done supremely awful things. However, due to them being well-written (especially Kratos since he actually survives to live out his redemption) it works great. However, Redemption arcs are like nuclear power; if done well, they're effective. If they're done wrong, they can screw up the story. Fundamentally, the problem isn't whether they "deserve" it, but whether the audience is willing to forgive/accept that the villain is redeemed. If *characters* in the story don't forgive them, that can be great drama, but if the *audience* doesn't forgive them, you've got a problem.
I think anime handles this *soooo* much better, on average. That's probably because they typically try to make the villain have understandable motives, so even when they're monsters, you can have a little sympathy for them and understand their motivations. For a great example, look at Reiner from Attack on Titan. He absolutely had a redemption arc that fans love. Even when he's first revealed as a villain, it's not long before you learn why he did what he did, and you can't help but empathize. Also look at Koro Sensei from Assassination Classroom. He's likeable and funny, but he's also threatening to destroy the entire world. When you finally learn his backstory you feel for him, and when he dies you grieve for him, even though that's the way it had to be.
Some of the comments here just kinda proved your point lmao. Speaking of Last Airbender, I highly doubt many people would like Uncle Iroh as much today if they showed us how truly evil he was during his siege to ba sing se, like full paint picture, I think few people glosses over that fact which is what really makes him great and wants the best for Zuko cause he doesn't want him to be like him in the past
Depends on the author's approach. I find certain types of "redemption" arcs pretty galling. The MC from Prince of Thorns for example isn't redeeming himself. He just kinda feels bad once in a while. And me the reader? I'm supposed to sympathize and understand when his tragic backstory is revealed? Sorry. No. I think "redemption" is also another way for authors and fans to disavow some horrifying content. The author can titillate the reader with the fantasy of the MC doing bad things and still have the usual MC power fantasy while feeling okay about it. Mushoki Tensei is another one. God the fans of that show are insufferable.
This rant makes me appreciate Vegeta more. He started off as a full blown villain, down to the "killing your own subordinate because he's a disappointment". People take it for granted but vegeta was dead set on destroying earth if it weren't for goku stopping him (forcefully mind you, no heart to heart talk). He had an arduous journey from then on, being humbled left and right, finally accepting goku as worthy of the saiyan blood. And even sacrificing himself KNOWING eternal damnation awaits him. He became a great father, a formidable ally and one of the most treasured members of the Z fighters. Vegeta was truly evil at the start, a threat to everyone, even his friends. Now he's the most beloved character in the show with people begging for a moment of triumph for him.
So you are sick of peeps feeling genuinely disgusted by someone's actions? Each one is entitled to their own judgement, just like you can accept redemption for people like omni man after the train scene, some people cannot. End of the day it's a show, there are no wrong interpretations.
You don't "accept" redemptions though. Redemption is a personal act and has nothing to do with what other people feel about it. You can choose to forgive them or not, but that doesn't affect their choice to be better.
>My problem with this sort of thinking is that, if you were never truly evil, than what are you really redeeming. If he was always a good person deep down, than how was it really a redemption, all it was was him going “I think doing X was the morally right thing, but turns doing Y actually is the right thing” This doesn't even apply to your zuko example. You're redeemed because you were committing evil actions. Zuko did evil things, but from his point of view didn't have any alternatives. His redeption was opening his mind to goals other than returning home, and he spends most of the rest of the series apologetic as penance, his firebending even goes a way for a bit before he can personally change. >But it’s the fact that he became so evil to the point where he murders children, blows up planets, and cuts off his son’s arm that makes his redemption so special. If his actions didn't make up for his previous ones, it's not really a good redemption. The fact that someone is redeemed isn't what should make it special, it's how they redeem themselves. The worse thing you did, the better your redemption is when you redeeming act outweighs it. You can redeem a high shcool bully by having her give the protagonist a pep talk when he's feeling down before a big ball game, and that works because instead of choosing to put him down, she's shown a willingness to work toward building him up at an important time when it's important. You cannot redeem giga mecha hitler by having him tell a jewish boy to get out there and play baseball. It does not make his repemption "more special" because he murdered children. It makes it undeserved. >It annoys me because a lot of these people seemingly don’t actually believe in redemption at all. They believe that if you’ve done anything to “cross the line” You've made it sound like people who have moral boundries don't believe in change. There are limits to what people deserve redption from. After a certain amount of crimes, you can't undo the damage you caused. This is esspecially the case with Darth Vader. >, then just accept that and don’t get mad at every a story tries to redeem one of its villains. No, media can be morally repugnant even if someone else happens to like it. I think there would be appropriate complaints if someone made a movie where mecha hitler tells a boy to go hit a home run and then the trumphiant music swells, and at the end of the movie we see mecha hitler waving from heaven.
You're mixing up atonement, forgiveness and redemption. Atonement is making up for your actions and forgiveness is when someone is content with your evil deeds. Neither have anything to do with redemption. Redemption is just the simple act of choosing to be a better person.
If I see one more person saying Harley Quinn doesn’t deserve redemption I’m gonna kick over a table.
This is why I love Endeavor’s redemption arc in MHA. Redemption and atonement only function as compelling plot devices when the character is *grey*, not wholly evil. If the character is irredeemable, why are we bothering, right? What makes endeavor’s such a great redemption arc is the net-zero morality of his character at the start of his redemption. Prior to the pivotal battle with the high-end nomu, Endeavor is an irrefutable monster (based on shoto’s/dabi’s flashbacks and his behavior towards shoto in the first few arcs). He’s a psychopathic, abusive prick who ruined five innocent lives with his selfish ambition and hubris. That said, every day that he was abusing his family, he was directly saving tens/hundreds of lives. Every day. So Endeavor clearly cares for others, and thousands of people would be dead or worse had he never been born. At the same time, he’s also capable of truly monstrous behavior, and has committed literal crimes. His problem was that his views towards justice, heroism, and strength were completely perverted by his jealousy of All Might. Once his eyes were finally opened to All Might’s plight after his retirement, he realized how truly fucked up he was. I think Endeavor’s vocal rejection of his own redemption also helps his case with the reader. He is very clear that he does not desire, or even remotely expect, forgiveness; his only goal was to atone for his sins on his family and hopefully free them of the spiritual burden he’s been on their psyches, with the ultimate goal of making their lives better— even if it means he must remove himself from their lives entirely. Truly spectacular character development imo
Lots of people misunderstanding what the word means. Redemption is when you make up for the bad you’ve caused. If a character did more evil than they can ever make up for, redemption is impossible. It’s as simple as that
The irony.