Redemption for Villains

[MaximusRift]

I thought we were discussing how these characters view themselves.

And I thought we we talking about "good" and "evil", so we're even. ;p

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.

True, but we don't give in to it always.  There are people we do show charity to.  Also, we are talking about an extreme case of selfishness, not something petty.  Lastly, I do think of selfishness as evil, but there are degrees of "evil" Not wanting to give up the last slice of pizza does not a villain make

Once again, we are talking about "redeemed villain" stories being as popular as "fallen hero" stories.

[Navarre]

I believe it is consistency of action over time that defines both the person. The depth of those actions determines the depth of the character.

Taking the last slice of pizza once is at worst inconsiderate. Doing it all the time will define that person as inconsiderate, at least as it applies to pizza. But no matter how many slices he snags, he will never be evil solely because of that, as pizza-taking is not held as evil by society.

If the person commits an act we consider evil, such as killing someone with intent, that does not define the person as evil if all the other aspects of his character seem to defy that. It clearly shows an issue that must be addressed but he may not be evil.

If the person kills with intent on several occasions, one could define him as evil. He has shown a consistent disregard for what society considers good despite other aspects of his character.

Yet, even then, it is a perilous path when one chooses to define any person with such an all-encompassing term as good or evil. Each person does indeed have both qualities to some degree unless they are entirely sociopathic.

But, for all practical purposes, if one commits enough evil acts enough times, they are evil. The converse is also true. Any one evil or good act will not be adequate to define the person.

And the story of a person who has been shown to be evil by consistent and powerful acts coming to redemption could be compelling, yes. But it must be plausible. Just as there are reasons the person became evil, there must be even more powerful forces to motivate such a radical change.

I think a more interesting story would be a very good person who committed a single reprehensibly evil act, one so terrible that despite his true character he must struggle against the label now placed on him. It is difficult to feel like a good person when the world hates you and it hurts worse when you are, in fact, good.

[MaximusRift]

Navarre: Isn't that Spider-Man shtick more or less? He does good, but thanks to certain people he's considered evil by some?  Same could be said for the current stories running in Action Comics. Mon-El, Flamebird and Nightwing aren't evil, but because of what happened are hated all the same.

I'm looking forward to Incorruptible coming out in December since I feel that there's been an absence of these type of stories.  There will be an opportunity for Marvel to do so after DarkReign/Siege is over since the possibility exist that some of those villains brought in to "play superhero" might actually enjoy doing good.

[Navarre]

Spider-Man does often fall in that category, yes. But because of the limited omniscient perspective given us by the writer, we know how good Peter is.

So we view his actions as he does because we can be in his head. Some stories written from the perspective of someone on the other side of the actions, or even just the perspective of the common person on the street, would even that out a little more.

Yes, we know Spider-Man is good. Not all people in the Marvel U have the advantage of knowledge that we do.