Redemption for Villains

[MaximusRift]

I've noticed that tales of the fallen superhero are starting to gain popularity and are becoming a bit more frequent. I'm not really interested in stories like that right now, but it does get me thinking. What ever happened to the stories of redeemed villains?  Doesn't it seem like we're getting less and less of those stories? If the story of the analog-Superman falling into complete villainy or committing heinous acts is attractive; wouldn't the story of the irredeemable villain be just as attractive?

I think the problem is that many times that change isn't permanent. Magneto and Mystique come to mind when I think of characters that seem to flip-flop on the whim of the current writer.  However, some of the good changes that do come to mind are Songbird and Rouge. What do you guys think? Would you like to see a Doctor Doom analog go into the path of good?

[morpheus11]

Boom is releasing a title "Incorruptable" (I think) that is going to be about a villian from the Irredeemable title that will be trying to be a good guy after the good guy went bad.  I think this could led to good story telling b/c the 2 people that are changing sides will be in the same universe and happening at the same time. 

I think the biggest problem with telling stories of a evil character turning into a good character is can the writer make the reader not feel like this is just a ploy by the villian.  For example, in the last Uncanny X-men book Magneto comes to Utopia and asks to join the cause.  I wouldn't want to trust him seeing as he has tried that before and only been using everyone to reach something.  That is kind of the "M.O." of most villians so telling a story of them turning into a hero is a little harder to make an impact.

[Marvel2099]

When you think about it quite a few characters were introduced as villians only to become heroes.  Hawkeye was a pretty bad guy to begin with.  Then he was given a chance to do the right thing and ended up joining the Avengers.  Wonder Man was black mailed into being a villain to save his life but did the right thing in the end. 

Also it depends on the storyline at the time.  Dr Doom has helped save the earth multiple times.  However no one would trust Doom to save America.  Seeing as Doom only helps save the world as Latveria is part of the world.  Also durring Annihilation both Ronin and the Super-Skrull helped to save the universe from the annihilation wave.  For the same reason Doom does.

How about villians who reformed then returned to crime.  For example look at Juggernaut, who reformed and joined the X-Men and Excalibur.  Due to being weakened by this he agrees to go back to his bad old ways to regain his strength.

[The Mighty King Cobra]

I've noticed that tales of the fallen superhero are starting to gain popularity and are becoming a bit more frequent. I'm not really interested in stories like that right now, but it does get me thinking. What ever happened to the stories of redeemed villains?  Doesn't it seem like we're getting less and less of those stories? If the story of the analog-Superman falling into complete villainy or committing heinous acts is attractive; wouldn't the story of the irredeemable villain be just as attractive?

I think the problem is that many times that change isn't permanent. Magneto and Mystique come to mind when I think of characters that seem to flip-flop on the whim of the current writer.  However, some of the good changes that do come to mind are Songbird and Rouge. What do you guys think? Would you like to see a Doctor Doom analog go into the path of good?

Nope.

Geoff Johns plays with this trope quite often, with Black Adam during his run in JSA, and currently with Sinestro in the Blackest Night crossovers.  I don't mind when a character changes sides, I don't even mind that some characters flip back and forth, ala Mystique.  What bothers me is the frequency with which they vacillate.  Remember:  Hawkeye had two OTHER former villains with him when he joined the Avengers, both of whom have been up and down the "Good to Evil" scale faster than panties in a roadside stripjoint...

Doctor Doom already thinks he's on the path of good.  So does Namor.  And really, a lot of the best villains are on that thought process.  Lex Luthor does what he does because he feels he is smarter than everyone else and that he has the right to.  The Joker does what he does because he thinks it'll be funny.  The villain should always be the hero of his own story...

My greatest problem with this particular story device is that writers want to work in absolutes.  Quicksilver is a good example.  When he's a hero, we are told that his villainy was the result of Terrigen madness, or bipolar disorder, or rage at being left out of Inhuman society, or some sort of grudge that he never fit in with the Avengers.  He was never REALLY crazy.  But when he's a villain, we're given the characterization that he was never a hero, that he always wanted to be like dear old daddy Magnus, that he only pretended to belong to X-Factor because it served his ends.  We can't just have a character whose morality is shady and self-preserving, the writers keep adding little things to it to make it seem like the way things are NOW is the way they've always been...

[Marvel2099]

I never thought of the idea of the Villain thinking himself the Hero.  The only story I have ever read was the Batman Judge Dredd crossover where Riddler put in his Riddle with the hero's dying breath.  I thought he meant Batman but he meant himself. 

Villains fall into categories, those who think their are protecting their people/the planet.  Those who do what they do for lack of a better word...FUN.  Those who want more power and then the villains that just want money.

Because of this the Villians that want to protect their people will sometimes flip-flop between helping the good guys to fighting them.  This will also include the villains who want more power.  It is also the same for the villains that do it for the money as they would do anything for money.  However the ones that do it for fun will always do whatever they want, whenever they want. 

[MaximusRift]

Mighty King Cobra: I agree about the "Absolute" tendency with writers. However, there are right now 3 stories (Irredeemable, The Mighty and Dynamo 5 to some extent) where we have Superman-analogs behaving like psychotic bastards and I would say that these stories are popular.  Wouldn't the story of the Dr. Doom analog or Joker analog realizing that they are wrong and try for redemption be just as popular? 

[The Mighty King Cobra]

Mighty King Cobra: I agree about the "Absolute" tendency with writers. However, there are right now 3 stories (Irredeemable, The Mighty and Dynamo 5 to some extent) where we have Superman-analogs behaving like psychotic bastards and I would say that these stories are popular.  Wouldn't the story of the Dr. Doom analog or Joker analog realizing that they are wrong and try for redemption be just as popular? 

I wasn't asked what was popular, I was asked if I would like to see it.   Also worth noting, as I've said repeatedly on the podcasts: I like books for little moments, character bits or notions that have never been seen before.  Having "Superman" as the main villain of Irredeemable was pretty clever.  Turning that bit on it's head would not be the same as the original. 

Again, Doctor Doom IS the hero in his mind, and that accursed Richards and his ilk the villains.  If you were to tell a story from Doom's perspective, it would be one thing, but for Doom to change his modus operandi would be essentially unthinkable.  HE IS DOOM!  DOOM WILL ALWAYS BE DOOM!

[Rome]

I usually find Villains to be some of the more compelling characters.
 
But I think notion of being a 'villain' or evil is inauthentic.  It doesn't make sense to have a "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" because no one thinks of himself as being evil.  There will always be sociopaths, like the Joker.  But it is ridiculous to think that all 'villains' fit that role, though many do.  I find comics more compelling where even the antagonists are in some way sympathetic.  Its more realistic to see that there isn't really good and bad, but different perspectives and motivations.

When you 'get' a character, either good or bad it adds to the depth of the story and characterizations are more meaningful.  There are few books that do it well, because its much easier to write a basic good v. bad story.

[MaximusRift]

I would disagree that there is no good or evil. The only reason we have "grey" area is because there is "black" and "white" to mix. That said, I would agree that there is a lot of "grey" since an action can be motivated by many circumstances.

The "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" might not think themselves evil, but their actions speak loudly. They accuse humanity of being racist, but they act the same way themselves.  They claim to be fighting for rights, but use terrorism to do it. Hence why we perceive the X-men as good and the Brotherhood as evil.

Also, there are many types of villains. For every villain that has sob story or was a victim of circumstance; there is another that does it because he can or doesn't care about the consequence of his action. And lest we forget that after said tragedy, said person can always reconsider. Can they have noble qualities? Sure, but said qualities are twisted by hate, arrogance, dementia and/or stupidity.  Black Adam tearing up the gov. that killed his family? That we can condone. Black Adam killing the whole populous and whatever hero tried to stop him? That we don't condone.

[Ocho]

I open this with the disclaimer that I have not been reading the current run of Ms. Marvel, so... Moonstone has been portrayed in Thunderbolts over the years as not looking at her affiliations as good or evil, but looking for a winning side. Whatever side Moonstone flourishes in she chooses. If it gets her what she wants to save the world, she'll save the world. If she comes out on top screwing over the world, everyone better watch their backsides.

[MaximusRift]

I open this with the disclaimer that I have not been reading the current run of Ms. Marvel, so... Moonstone has been portrayed in Thunderbolts over the years as not looking at her affiliations as good or evil, but looking for a winning side. Whatever side Moonstone flourishes in she chooses. If it gets her what she wants to save the world, she'll save the world. If she comes out on top screwing over the world, everyone better watch their backsides.

I'm not sure about what you mean. Are you saying that she sees herself as "good"?

[Ocho]

I don't think she sees herself as good or evil. She just looks out for number one, herself.

[MaximusRift]

I don't think she sees herself as good or evil. She just looks out for number one, herself.

That's selfishness.  Wouldn't you call that "evil"? "Evil" has lots of forms, don'cha know?

[Ocho]

I thought we were discussing how these characters view themselves.

[theSuperAlbino]

That's selfishness.  Wouldn't you call that "evil"? "Evil" has lots of forms, don'cha know?

Being selfish is not evil, if that were true then we all would have been evil at one time, everyone has done something selfish. I mean look at many of the rich and famous, their selfish, but I certainly wouldn't call them evil.