The Moral Limit and Supervillain Redemption

[Crimson Knight]

Just how far can any villain, super or otherwise, in fiction, go, before they are beyond redemption?

Has any continutity, or Earth, or adaptation, of the Joker went to the point where you could say 'Yes, they could be a regular citizen/anti-hero/good guy', rather than just a killer, or tormenter, or villain?

One poster I remember saying here that Black Adam had gone too far in the comics, and yet, Geoff Johns still strove to bring him redemption, or be accepted as a hero, or anti-hero.

I think that myself sometimes, that, for example, by the end of Season 4 of Breaking Bad, Walt and Jesse'd gone too far, too far to be redeemed, to quit, or to simply stop killing, breaking the law, making meth.

Maybe some of you'd disagree with me, but in that finale, I just got that thought and feeling, towards the end, whether Season 5 was to exist or not. They were too far gone for me.

Now, for some, the Green Goblin, original flavour, would've gone too far. Killing Gwen Stacy (or not), sleeping with her and having his children. Sleeping with the ex-fiancee of his son, and having her child.

Killing Atlanteans, capturing, drugging and burying alive Aunt May, or trying to brainwash Peter to be the next Green Goblin.

Lots of Dark Reign stuff... and more.

But, in turn, could you accept Harry Osborn, despite his stint as the Green Goblin, as a good person? A friend, ex-husband, a father?

A businessman, a fiancee, a son, a good guy?

My question to all of you here is this:

Are there villains, in manga, anime, any shows, comics, films, games etc, that have, in one continuity or another, gone beyond the point where you could accept them as a hero, good person, or another citizen?

Are there villains that, always, or mostly, you could accept and see making that transition, like Otto Octavius, Helbut Zemo, William 'Sandman' Baker, or otherwise?

I'd like to know.

[CSTowle]

Well written TV shows/movies/comics with tight continuity makes an irredeemable villain a lot easier. For one example in your post, when Walt watched "Apology Girl" choke on her own vomit and decided not to help her because she was a bad influence on Jesse (f##k your spoilers, you should have watched that show) I stopped "rooting" for him and wanted to see him fail. I still wanted to watch, but it changed how I viewed the show. In superhero comics, where you have changing writers and an ongoing story spanning decades, it's a lot harder to take anything seriously. You're always a mind-control/evil twin/alternate version/etc. away from retcon/reboot. So it's basically status updates on villainy/heroism, and nothing is forever.

[Crimson Knight]

Well written TV shows/movies/comics with tight continuity makes an irredeemable villain a lot easier. For one example in your post, when Walt watched "Apology Girl" choke on her own vomit and decided not to help her because she was a bad influence on Jesse (f##k your spoilers, you should have watched that show) I stopped "rooting" for him and wanted to see him fail. I still wanted to watch, but it changed how I viewed the show. In superhero comics, where you have changing writers and an ongoing story spanning decades, it's a lot harder to take anything seriously. You're always a mind-control/evil twin/alternate version/etc. away from retcon/reboot. So it's basically status updates on villainy/heroism, and nothing is forever.

For a lot of people, it seemed to be what he did towards the end of Season 4.

Yeah, that is understandable, and I sympathise, though letting someone die and killing them are two very different things.

And, very understandable.

Can someone hate Doctor Doom for a massacre, if it was just a Doombot, or a Demon?

[CSTowle]

Maybe for me it was like the baseball bat/desert burial scene in "Casino", where Pesci's begging them not to do it and knowing he's next. I've seen someone get beaten with a bat before (grew up in wonderful neighborhoods) and it makes me sick if I ever see the scene. I can relate to it, seems more real to me. Someone getting shot (been lucky not to see) or blown up, does nothing to me.

[Crimson Knight]

Maybe for me it was like the baseball bat/desert burial scene in "Casino", where Pesci's begging them not to do it and knowing he's next. I've seen someone get beaten with a bat before (grew up in wonderful neighborhoods) and it makes me sick if I ever see the scene. I can relate to it, seems more real to me. Someone getting shot (been lucky not to see) or blown up, does nothing to me.

I sympathise greatly with you. I'm sorry that ever happened, or near you.

I'm like that with some stuff, that I've never experienced, like shots to the head or decapapitations etc.

[Crimson Knight]

Are there many examples of villains, in comics, or outside, that you find can be redeemed, or have reached that point where they're too far gone?

Or, indeed, what indeed is that limit, for you?

[Kusanagi]

In most fiction, no once your established as really evil there's very little you can do to redeem yourself, and usually that redemption will get you killed.

The thing is in comics you can almost always add additional circumstances to make something that should be irredeemable become if not acceptable, at least something the audience is willing to swallow for the sake of the story. Whether it be mind control, drugs, some bigger darker evil controlling them, etc. etc.

Personal favorite was in Green Lantern, Hal Jordan goes insane kills off the green lantern corps, and tries to remake the universe? Yellow fear monster thing got inside him, or something, sorry not a big GL fan.

Because of this I would say it's less the action and more the history.

Once someone becomes an Iconic level of evil, basically evil just to be evil for a long point of time are the only ones who can't be redeemed. If there's any kind of goal, long term plot, or any sort of hint of sympathy in their back story redemption is possible (maybe not believable, or good, but possible). Seriously Thanos, I killed half of all life in the universe, has flirted with redemption.

[Conch22]

Defining a strong standard for redeemable villains is difficult (but I'm going to give it a shot).

On one side of the spectrum you have an antihero like the Punisher. Definitely a mass murderer, but then you look at his motivation (and targets).
His targets (or victims) are themselves horrible victmizers and killers. The Punisher ending their lives helps preserve the lives of their future victims (innocents). Greg Rucka had a Wolverine storyline where he had Nightcrawler make a similar point after one of Logans sprees "Is the wolf evil if it culls sickness from the heard?"

So I would say a bodycount alone doesn't make or break a redemption arc. The who, how and why has an equally strong bearing. Also, a character proactively trying to better themselves and make amends for past misdeeds goes a long way.

On the breaking bad front, there's a very clear difference made in the fifth season between Jesse and Walt (not sure if you've finished the series or not so I'll refrain from elaborating).

For a version of the Joker that could be accepted as an antihero/ good guy there was a lobotomized Joker in the Justice Lords universe in the Justice League cartoon where I could buy that. One of my favorite elseworlds is Batman: I Joker and it features a heroic Joker (though not the original and Batman is in essence a horrible dictator in the story.

Baron Zemo was a redemption I could never get onboard with (due to him being an unrepentant Nazi for so long). Dr.light is very irredeemable as long as identity crisis is canon. About the one series that seems to have the highest abundance of morally gray & redeemable villains would be the X-men titles (Stryker got a redemption, a character that tried to murder a 14 year old girl because of her race! ) Aforementioned redemption didn't last because of the characters iconicness as a villain and a lessened ability to mesh him in as a supporting character (unlike the villains that have had a redemption having abilities, therefore having their redemption bounced of a variety of heroic characters to sell their journey).

[Mr.Majestic]

For some I just can't do it. On Game of Thrones I can't forgive Jaime Lannister for what he did to Bran Stark but I have forgiven Sandor Clegane for killing Arya's friend the butcher boy. I know it doesn't make much sense, Jaime attempted to kill child and Sandor did kill one, but it's Jaime I can't forgive.

p.s. Comic book wise I really hope Mark Waid doesn't make the Radioactive Man a bad guy again in the new Avengers title. A definitive villain-turn in such a high-profile book would cast aside all possibility of redemption for that character.

[t hedge coke]

What kills me is redemption or toleration without the villain making real recompense or giving up any ill-gotten power and riches. President Luthor should have been two issues long and primarily consisted of superheroes trolling him into a breakdown if not actively spitting in his face and then Booster punching him or something. And, as much as fans can point to Talia being "redeemed" by two or three good deeds in that story (like stealing millions of dollars and major corporations from someone for... herself), she's living her rich, jet-set life with money culled from terrorism, assassinations, graft, slavery, war profiteering, weapons trafficking, kidnapping, assault... She's not just "naturally" rich. That comes from somewhere. Doing something helpful to someone she occasionally likes to bang is not the same as facing up to, say, an actual court or serving a genuine sentence (both of which would be incredibly unlikely, anyway).

Magneto's only ever really done that route, as well. He's fine with "redeeming" himself, so long as he doesn't have to give up any freedoms or ill-gotten gains. That's not redemption, that's basically an unearned pardon.

[KurtW95]

I think anybody who knowingly kills an innocent (not under the influence of some external force) can't be redeemed.

[worstblogever]

I really don't buy Sabretooth's magical "inversion" out for being a mass murdererer, at least attempted rapist (it's vague), and all around general sadism. It's still an ongoing plot, but this isn't the heroic Sabretooth from the Age of Apocalypse we're talking about, here.

[Crimson Knight]

I really don't buy Sabretooth's magical "inversion" out for being a mass murdererer, at least attempted rapist (it's vague), and all around general sadism. It's still an ongoing plot, but this isn't the heroic Sabretooth from the Age of Apocalypse we're talking about, here.

Inversion? What do you mean by that?

And, with you, Kurt, I disagree, there, but understand. I mean, I know there're a fair few comics and more where they're more or less forced, threatened, their family etc, unless they kill them, jurt them, do that.

Maybe they don't have to, but if a character said 'Kill this person, or I'll kill your entire family, and make you watch', I can't help but feel, even if in killing the innocent they are doing wrong, to decide this persons' life over their family, or let their family be killed, when they could've avoided it, I don't know.

Or, they're holding their daughter, or their sister, and will kill them, if they don't do what they want. Still wrong, but, more redeemable and understandable, I think.

[Agent Z]

Inversion? What do you mean by that?

And, with you, Kurt, I disagree, there, but understand. I mean, I know there're a fair few comics and more where they're more or less forced, threatened, their family etc, unless they kill them, jurt them, do that.

Maybe they don't have to, but if a character said 'Kill this person, or I'll kill your entire family, and make you watch', I can't help but feel, even if in killing the innocent they are doing wrong, to decide this persons' life over their family, or let their family be killed, when they could've avoided it, I don't know.

Or, they're holding their daughter, or their sister, and will kill them, if they don't do what they want. Still wrong, but, more redeemable and understandable, I think.

During the Axis event, both super heroes and villains alike were affected by a phenomenon that caused them to be the inverse of their personality. Most of them were returned to normal except Tony Stark, Alex Summers and Sabretooth.

[Agent Z]

What kills me is redemption or toleration without the villain making real recompense or giving up any ill-gotten power and riches. President Luthor should have been two issues long and primarily consisted of superheroes trolling him into a breakdown if not actively spitting in his face and then Booster punching him or something. And, as much as fans can point to Talia being "redeemed" by two or three good deeds in that story (like stealing millions of dollars and major corporations from someone for... herself), she's living her rich, jet-set life with money culled from terrorism, assassinations, graft, slavery, war profiteering, weapons trafficking, kidnapping, assault... She's not just "naturally" rich. That comes from somewhere. Doing something helpful to someone she occasionally likes to bang is not the same as facing up to, say, an actual court or serving a genuine sentence (both of which would be incredibly unlikely, anyway).

Magneto's only ever really done that route, as well. He's fine with "redeeming" himself, so long as he doesn't have to give up any freedoms or ill-gotten gains. That's not redemption, that's basically an unearned pardon.

Given how the guy has an alibi for everything it would have been pretty easy for him to make the heroes just look like bullies.