I’m struggling to think of a villain that is redeemed who has done something irredeemable. There’s a big difference between having a moment of humanization at the end, and redemption, but I think the author is conflating those.
I didn’t watch Naruto, and the linked article didn’t explain what happened to Pain to count as a ‘redemption’, so I looked it up and sure enough he basically expends his own life to revive some people he killed. Is that redemption? Does the show call it that? Does anyone else treat it as him having redeemed himself of his earlier genocide?
There are shows where the protagonist’s party collects antagonists like pokemon, like Ranma 1/2, but those characters are usually more like personal rivals than villains.
Does anyone else treat it as him having redeemed himself of his earlier genocide?
Unfortunately yes. Edgy dudes out there don’t put enough weight on what attempted genocide means, despite (perhaps because?) how common that is chosen for the villain goal.
I do agree with the fundamental thesis: it’s boring to see it over and over that villains tend to have a sympathetic origin story. Villains are either branded muscle-types with a thing for violence, or traumatized victims seeking help. It’s refreshing to see something different.
I don’t agree with “The Perfect Villains, Despite Their Lack Of Depth”, though. Most villains suck because most X suck, for any X. It’s not because they have gray morality.
I wasn’t referring to fans, and those edgy dudes will pull a “Thanos did nothing wrong” whether there is a humanizing moment or not.
I dislike villains that have no rhyme or reason to their actions, because that’s incredibly shallow, and there’s already enough dehumanization IRL. That doesn’t mean the reason needs to be morally gray; tons of reasons are just plain wrong and indefensible. But don’t not have a reason.
You want Starship Troopers bugs that are just animals? You want zombies that are purely chemical processes? Great, no humanization necessary!
But don’t try to sell me on people being evil for the sake of evil.
I’m struggling to think of a villain that is redeemed who has done something irredeemable. There’s a big difference between having a moment of humanization at the end, and redemption, but I think the author is conflating those.
I didn’t watch Naruto, and the linked article didn’t explain what happened to Pain to count as a ‘redemption’, so I looked it up and sure enough he basically expends his own life to revive some people he killed. Is that redemption? Does the show call it that? Does anyone else treat it as him having redeemed himself of his earlier genocide?
There are shows where the protagonist’s party collects antagonists like pokemon, like Ranma 1/2, but those characters are usually more like personal rivals than villains.
No & No.
Unfortunately yes. Edgy dudes out there don’t put enough weight on what attempted genocide means, despite (perhaps because?) how common that is chosen for the villain goal.
I do agree with the fundamental thesis: it’s boring to see it over and over that villains tend to have a sympathetic origin story. Villains are either branded muscle-types with a thing for violence, or traumatized victims seeking help. It’s refreshing to see something different.
I don’t agree with “The Perfect Villains, Despite Their Lack Of Depth”, though. Most villains suck because most X suck, for any X. It’s not because they have gray morality.
I wasn’t referring to fans, and those edgy dudes will pull a “Thanos did nothing wrong” whether there is a humanizing moment or not.
I dislike villains that have no rhyme or reason to their actions, because that’s incredibly shallow, and there’s already enough dehumanization IRL. That doesn’t mean the reason needs to be morally gray; tons of reasons are just plain wrong and indefensible. But don’t not have a reason.
You want Starship Troopers bugs that are just animals? You want zombies that are purely chemical processes? Great, no humanization necessary!
But don’t try to sell me on people being evil for the sake of evil.