Last time I wrote about villains making amends, after they decide to change their ways, flip sides, or generally become support to the protagonist, rather than the antagonist.
But for them to get there, there has to first come the realization that they are the villain of their story. And while we have delicious villains who know exactly who they are and are relishing in it without remorse,
exhibit A
there are also a wide range of villains who actually think they are the heroes of their own story. That they have a mission and they are correct, fighting for a cause and/or opposing some kind of evil. In order to even consider making a heel face turn, they first need to realize that they believe in something false, or that their grasp of their situation is, similarly, wrong.
exhibit B, this entire scene is Zuko's progress to this realization in a nutshell
When you have skin in the game, realizing you made the wrong call is a tough pill to swallow. When you have done things that you justified as ‘necessary evil’ for a greater good, and then you realize that in fact that was not the greater good and/or you can't reach a greater good through a ladder of atrocities or evil doing, denying it and doubling down is an actual defense mechanism.
Nobody likes to look in the mirror and see a monster. Not even monsters.
So a reflex reaction would be to smash the mirror, or cover it up, or deny that what they see is their reflection. A character that has reached that junction will go one of either ways:
A. Double down and become even more villainous, leaning into everything in a desperate attempt to eliminate everything that shows them they are, indeed, villainous
kinda like this, common when someone attempts to deprogram a brainwashed villain/antagonist
B. Find the inner strength to look at the mirror, own the reflection, and work to change it to the best of their ability. 
Rurouni Kenshin's Jinchū Arc is a masterclass in this type of character/antagonist dynamic. In the manga more than the movie, and let's not talk about the OVA
There's also a third path, that of acceptance of the reflection as their actual identity. A “so I'm the monster, so be it” approach, but that's another version of doubling down. Different rationalizations follow- of the type ‘I become the monster so others can live pure’ or some such thing, depending on how much the character wants to hang on to their self-perception as someone moral and/or inherently right, even when they're wrong.
No matter what path a character that starts off as a villain takes- and whether they remain a villain- this kind of inner struggle and turmoil can yield fascinating character development for them, humanizing them without taking away from their villainy (if that is what we want) or even making them sympathetic. Understanding a monster doesn't necessarily make you feel closer or forgiving towards it. But it does make it memorable, and even a warning tale.
If the character starts off as a villain and then, going through such a character development, becomes a hero (in the sense that they flip sides/change goals/become antagonists themselves to their former allies), then it feels earned and there is a sense of triumph and satisfaction when it happens. And it makes them, consequently, very memorable as well.
Doesn't of course mean that if you choose the Straight Up Villain And Lovin' it recipe that you won't make a memorable, deliciously entertaining villain. It just will be a different kind of story that you're telling with them.
What do you tend to do with your villains and redeemed (or sort of redeemed) villains, if you have any?
Don’t forget you can now advertise on DrunkDuck for just $2 in whichever ad spot you like! The money goes straight into running the site. Want to know more? Click this link here! Or, if you want to help us keep the lights on you can sponsor us on Patreon. Every bit helps us!
Special thanks to our patrons!!
Justnopoint - Banes - RMccool - Abt_Nihil - Gunwallace - PaulEberhardt - Emma_Clare - FunctionCreep - SinJinsoku - Smkinoshita - jerrie - Chickfighter - Andreas_Helixfinger - Tantz_Aerine - Genejoke - Davey Do - Gullas - Roma - NanoCritters - Teh Andeh - Peipei - Digital_Genesis - Hushicho - Palouka - cheeko - Paneltastic - L.C.Stein - dpat57 - Bravo1102 - The Jagged - LoliGen - OrcGirl - Miss Judged - Fallopiancrusader - arborcides - ChipperChartreuse - Mogtrost - InkyMoondrop - Jgib99 - Hirokari - Orgivemedeath Ind - Mks Monsters - GregJ - HawkandFloAdventures - Soushiyo - JohnCelestri- Tottycomics - Casscade - Salexander - Willed
Are We The Baddies?
Tantz_Aerine at 12:00AM, June 15, 2024
5 likes!
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved Mastodon
Ozoneocean at 3:25AM, June 17, 2024
@PaulEberhardt - It really and truly IS directly comparable because in, Greece, France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia Holland, Denmark, and many other places they weren't trying to wipe out of suppress the culture, or expand Germany, they were just brutally occupying and taking the place over like what was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, There was never a "war on Terror", that was a silly artificial concept, the reality is that sort of invasion and occupation is the key thing that causes terrorism. They did it to expand strategic influence and control in the regions, which is always one of the main reasons for war. And that's all I'll say on the matter.
PaulEberhardt at 10:01PM, June 16, 2024
But, yeah, let's not get too political here. All that ever does is cause divisiveness where we really don't want it, none of us.
PaulEberhardt at 9:55PM, June 16, 2024
@Ozoneocean: That's not quite comparable, although I'd partly agree that it's nothing to be glorified, and re-examining oneself is something everyone should do every once in a while. Still, conquering "to expand your people's living space", as the Nazis did, is a quite different thing from waging a "war on terror", even if bombing and occupying a country as a method of democratisation is of course more than questionable on many levels. None of the Western countries was trying to wipe out or suppress a culture to settle there, even if Islamist and Russian propaganda are all too happy to claim otherwise - the latter of course to distract from their own much more comparable attempt at conquest.
Ozoneocean at 7:55PM, June 16, 2024
The reason why I didn't make Tantz and Banes do this topic is because I know it won't be a popular opinion and I didn't want them dragged down by my ideas.
Ozoneocean at 7:53PM, June 16, 2024
This was a topic we talked about doing on the Quackcast but from the POV of real events, specifically how the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan put the US, Britain, Australia, Frnace and others in the same position as the Nazis during WW2 in places like France the Balkans, and eastern Europe, but none of them seem to realise it. Granted, they're not actively committing genocide, but at the time in WW2 the invaded peoples didn't even consider that aspect, they just doing like having their country invaded, occupied, the invaders telling them what to do, forcing them to fight, stealing their stuff, commandeering their property, searching their homes, imprisoning and killing family members etc so they fought back. Currently in the media we still see "insurgents" as the most evil thing ever and any soldier involved in the occupation as an honoured veteran- Imagine if that attitude was placed on the Nazis occupying France or Poland? It'd be awful. This is why we HAVE to re-examine ourselves .
PaulEberhardt at 10:57AM, June 16, 2024
This trope can do a lot of things. It could add a ton of realism, because it humanizes your villain - nobody wants to think of themselves as a villain, as you said, Tantz. Being considered one may be quite a blow to your self-esteem. It might as well be played for laughs, when it's about something ludicrously obvious: "What do you mean, looting and burning down villages, impaling the men, raping the women and enslaving their children is bad? We've always done it that way?" Or perhaps a variation that focuses even more on dramatic irony, like in "Iron Sky". Then again, it can be seemingly played for laughs until the audience realises that what it really does is highlight cultural differences and subsequent misunderstandings.
InkyMoondrop at 4:47PM, June 15, 2024
Everyone knows the pacing for the last few seasons, and especially the final one was dreadful. But the botched closure you're talking about was worse It was worse in X-files season 9, when they tried to answer 9 years of questions and finish plotlines left open in a few episodes. GoT is only more tragic, because Martin was already too slow in writing and now that a version of it is out there, finished, he's probably not very motivated to release Winds of Winter at all. Again: my all-time favorite villain is probably Griffith from Berserk, the hero's friend, who betrays and sacrifices his crew for his ambitions. In a way the hero becomes the barbaric past that haunts him to seek revenge, while it looks like the villain is actually building a utopia.
bravo1102 at 4:00PM, June 15, 2024
There was no reasoning. It was "let's end the story, we're sick of writing it." So whatever needed to happened, happened. All the characters stopped thinking and just acted on impulse to just end it already. Do five episodes of transition in five minutes of screen time. Strip it down and race for the exit.
InkyMoondrop at 11:31AM, June 15, 2024
I don't think his relationship to his sister needed redeeming at all. The core value of his character came from putting family first (see him freeing Tyrion) and his love of Cersei despite always seeing her what she was. His journey as a character was complete by getting a taste of a life without her and gaining independence. But his final decision, after reflecting on his new life was using that independence to accept who he is. The audience is salty because they wanted a happy ending for him after all that development and wanted him to get a happy ending. Truth is: his love and loyalty although cost him a lot, he never truly saw them as flaws to correct. I still think he learned a lot about life and himself, enough to decide for himself, even if this decision turned out to be one of the most unpopular ones of the series.
Tantz_Aerine at 11:30AM, June 15, 2024
The going back to his sister wasn't the problem, the reasoning was. But that's a long story/discussion...
bravo1102 at 11:20AM, June 15, 2024
Jamie redeemed himself? He was always kind of iffy to me. Never really saw him as redeemed so that he wouldn't go back to his sister.
InkyMoondrop at 6:53AM, June 15, 2024
I must be the only person in this entire f*** world who thinks Jaime's storyline was better this way...
Tantz_Aerine at 3:24AM, June 15, 2024
Agreed Usedbooks. Also, what was done to Jamie in Game of Thrones. UGH.
usedbooks at 3:20AM, June 15, 2024
There are ways villains can redeem themselves and then be villains again. But it has to be through a character arc that makes sense. If the original turn-to-good was deep, a turnaround has to be just as deep and significant. The motives for being bad have to tug at them. Maybe evil is their nature. Maybe they fall into bad habits. Maybe they have an entire new character turning evil arc, and now they are MORE evil because betrayal is at play. You can't shortcut it and be lazy, though. Flip-flopping characters in a dramatic story are boring and cause the audience to lose faith in the writers.
usedbooks at 3:01AM, June 15, 2024
I've seen this done so poorly and inorganicly by creators who obviously just changed their mind on character development and weren't creative enough to develop a new antagonist. Like, they went through an entire redemption arc, then thought "oh, but he was a great villain, and I want him to be evil again," so they just make him evil again so they can have a sequel with the same villain. MacGyver did this with Murdock (who, to be fair, never should have had a humanizing redemption arc at all, what a great villain that they completely spoiled). Another was James Norrington in Pirates of the Caribbean. I loved his redemption arc in the first movie. The way the writers did him dirty for a sequel pissed me off so much that it ruined the franchise for me. Tbh, that whole franchise is a great example of how not to do character development, imo.