Is There Such A Thing As An Irredeemable Character?

[Timothy Hunter]

Can a character do something so evil (i.e. mass murder, rape
etc) that can they can't be redeemed and make it feel deserved or sincere?

How do you write an effective redemption arc?

Who is the most deplorable character in fiction you've come across who saw the error of their ways?

[Tami]

Sure, you can create an irredeemable character. Only, most often, the character is usually killed or dies before any indepth dive into his or her background can be made.

That is, unless the character is psychotic, criminally insane, or has some other similar mental disorder.

For example, I'd say that the Joker is a classic case of a psychotic irredeemable character.

[babyblob]

Sure, you can create an irredeemable character. Only, most often, the character is usually killed or dies before any indepth dive into his or her background can be made.

That is, unless the character is psychotic, criminally insane, or has some other similar mental disorder.

For example, I'd say that the Joker is a classic case of a psychotic irredeemable character.

But man did DC try with the sad backstory they gave him. And they of course had to redeem Harley Quinn the Female Joker who in her own way was just as evil because she is a current cash cow.

The sad thing is no matter how bad a villain is the writers who who ever want to make them relatable to the normal person so they try and give them a sad story that makes you feel bad for the fact they turned evil and murdered hundreds of people. Some times people are evil. That is why I enjoy Red Skull and Carnage. Just evil. The Skull will do very evil things to meet his goal and not bat an eye or say sorry. Carnage is just evil and I love it.

So there can be a truly irredeemable character it just seems like 9 times out of ten the industry does not let it happen.

[MajorHoy]

Can a character do something so evil (i.e. mass murder, rape etc) that can they can't be redeemed and make it feel deserved or sincere?

Let's not talk about U.S. politics in this thread . . .

[Username taken]

Yes, someone like Sabertooth that was a rapist and a murderer is pretty irredeemable as far as I'm concerned.

The guy wasn't just going after Wolverine's lovers, he was forcing himself on them and tearing them apart.

Unless this has been retconned or something, I can't imagine EVER rooting for that character.

[armlessphelan]

Marvel has spent decades trying to redeem Hank Pym, and then it always goes back to "remember that time you slapped your wife?"

[babyblob]

Yes, someone like Sabertooth that was a rapist and a murderer is pretty irredeemable as far as I'm concerned.

The guy wasn't just going after Wolverine's lovers, he was forcing himself on them and tearing them apart.

Unless this has been retconned or something, I can't imagine EVER rooting for that character.

I would say Sabertooth is up there with Marvel's Irredeemable characters. i would put Red Skull Carnage and Norman Osborn on that list also.

[Mister Mets]

I guess it depends on whether you believe any person is incapable of redemption.

[Adam Allen]

I would say Sabertooth is up there with Marvel's Irredeemable characters. i would put Red Skull Carnage and Norman Osborn on that list also.

I mean, Sabertooth may be irredeemable, but I feel like there was a whole phase where they flirted with that idea? Wasn't he like wearing some kind of shock collar on missions and locked in the basement somewhere off of missions, but operating as a kind-f X-Man, with those constraints? I mean, those are pretty big constraints, but it's similar to the anti-hero path of redemption they allowed for Negan on the Walking Dead, and Spike on Buffy. Bad guy is basically forced to be less evil, then eventually just stops being evil. (In Spike's case, I haven't watched the last season of TWD, so maybe he goes back full villain.) They might have changed their mind about it with Sabertooth, but if his popularity as an anti-hero held up, I'm sure they would not have.

Sylar from Heroes would be another. Initially just outright evil and remorseless, but the character is popular enough ... think they took a whole season of highly improbable story arcs, to get him to "no-longer-evil".

I think it doesn't matter if it makes sense, or makes a good story -- no character is completely beyond redemption, if they are popular enough.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I actually don't know if redemption is even a thing, especially if it's used in a secular context.

I mean a number of 2010s era works - Bojack Horseman, Rick and Morty - have challenged the idea of redemption.

In superhero stories, the nature of redemption is always based on the degree to which the character's actions inhabit storybook evil and avoids crossing into real-life accessible evil.

Doctor Doom's schemes of world domination based on science and sorcery is so remote from reality, on even the most allegorical understanding of real-world dictatorships (Putin, Xi Jinping etc) that you can sorta vicariously enjoy him as a bad guy and spectacle and likewise cheer him doing stuff that's bada-- when he's teaming up and so on and so forth.

Whereas Purple Man is a serial rapist who drugs his victim and exploits them without consent and that's been his characterization since the 2000s well before the #MeToo era. Purple Man is too much like real-life accessible evil to qualify for "redemption".

[Gray Lensman]

I actually don't know if redemption is even a thing, especially if it's used in a secular context.

I mean a number of 2010s era works - Bojack Horseman, Rick and Morty - have challenged the idea of redemption.

In superhero stories, the nature of redemption is always based on the degree to which the character's actions inhabit storybook evil and avoids crossing into real-life accessible evil.

Doctor Doom's schemes of world domination based on science and sorcery is so remote from reality, on even the most allegorical understanding of real-world dictatorships (Putin, Xi Jinping etc) that you can sorta vicariously enjoy him as a bad guy and spectacle and likewise cheer him doing stuff that's bada-- when he's teaming up and so on and so forth.

Whereas Purple Man is a serial rapist who drugs his victim and exploits them without consent and that's been his characterization since the 2000s well before the #MeToo era. Purple Man is too much like real-life accessible evil to qualify for "redemption".

Plus DOOM, is, I think, actually popular in Latveria. The ruler he displaced must have been truly horrific.

[godisawesome]

Taking this on a purely functional level…

…Irredeemable characters are more the construct of narrative decisions regarding POVs than it does characterization of the character or the actions they commit.

If you make a character a POV-carrying protagonist… many audience members will be immediately open to them being redeemable even when they go pitch dark in morality; I’m convinced George’s Lucas had Anakin/Vader explicitly kill children in ROTS largely to try and make sure people were cheering against him for the final duel, knowing that him being a POV character meant he had already had another edge on the redemption aspect alongside his known fate from ROTJ. And I know for a fact that the only reason people thought Kylo Ren would get redeemed was his family *AND* Johnson’s no others insisting he be viewed as a POV character… even though 8t made no sense to view the story through his POV.

[Iron Maiden]

Plus DOOM, is, I think, actually popular in Latveria. The ruler he displaced must have been truly horrific.

Doom is pretty popular with most people but it's not absolute. Every so often an opposing faction springs up but they're getting to be less of them. The last of the old royals died either at Doom's hand or as in the case of Prince Rodolpho who was killed by the Red Skull IIRC. AFAIK their lineage died out so there hasn't really been anyone to rally the people. Not that they would follow the Haasen dynasty anyway. There's never been much detail on the sins of the past rulers but they definitely weren't very progressive. Latveria was an economic backwater and there has been definite improvement under Doom's administration so that makes it a bit harder to foster any sizable opposition. And the Doombots are always watching.

[numberthirty]

I actually don't know if redemption is even a thing, especially if it's used in a secular context.

I mean a number of 2010s era works - Bojack Horseman, Rick and Morty - have challenged the idea of redemption.

In superhero stories, the nature of redemption is always based on the degree to which the character's actions inhabit storybook evil and avoids crossing into real-life accessible evil.

Doctor Doom's schemes of world domination based on science and sorcery is so remote from reality, on even the most allegorical understanding of real-world dictatorships (Putin, Xi Jinping etc) that you can sorta vicariously enjoy him as a bad guy and spectacle and likewise cheer him doing stuff that's bada-- when he's teaming up and so on and so forth.

Whereas Purple Man is a serial rapist who drugs his victim and exploits them without consent and that's been his characterization since the 2000s well before the #MeToo era. Purple Man is too much like real-life accessible evil to qualify for "redemption".

100 Bullets: Brother Lono

(Right up until it's not...)

[numberthirty]

Can a character do something so evil (i.e. mass murder, rape
etc) that can they can't be redeemed and make it feel deserved or sincere?

How do you write an effective redemption arc?

Who is the most deplorable character in fiction you've come across who saw the error of their ways?

Seriously, though...

Read 100 Bullets: Brother Lono

(In a perfect world, do it after you've read 100 Bullets...)