(T/F): 'An antagonist that dies could not be redeemed'

[DokiDokiTsuna]

This is purely opinion based...like, when an antagonist dies, or is outright killed by the hero, do you see it as the writer saying that there is no other way for their story to end?

• True
• False

Show results

Personally, I can see where this viewpoint makes sense, from a data collection standpoint. I mean, how do you solve the problem of an antagonist that can't be changed for the better? 90% of the time you kill them, or at least seal them away or something...you see this time and again, in all sorts of media.

But to make the jump from correlation to intention is a bit much...sometimes people just die. =/
I don't write a lot of soft antagonists, but when I do I always look at it as an "oh, how unfortunate" situation. I pity them, for lashing out all the time, for doing things to others that they'll never be able to take back...and sometimes, for ultimately destroying themselves. Doesn't mean they were pure evil and 'there was no other way'; it's just part of the tragedy of their character.

[KRWright]

I think the biggest issue here is that you're looking at the antagonist as though they're a real person, when fiction is created with intention and thus characters can't just die for no reason like in the real world. The just world fallacy is either upheld or denied in almost all stories humans tell, as we're trying to impart a particular message.

do you see it as the writer saying that there is no other way for their story to end?

No. I see it as the writer saying: This is the message of my story - that these beliefs/actions etc. deserve consequences.

I mean, how do you solve the problem of an antagonist that can't be changed for the better?

You created them so... you can always uncreate them. If you have created a villain so irredeemable that only death will satisfy the reader, but unintentionally, then you need a huge developmental edit of your work to find out where you went wrong. It's not a problem because your antagonist should always be created with intent.

Essentially, the antagonist is an extension of the main character's belief system, the themes of your work, and of you as a writer. What happens to them is entirely up to you.

[DasIstWunderblyat]

There is also a possibility that the author does not know what to do or have no future plan on them

[KRWright]

There is also a possibility that the author does not know what to do or have no future plan on them

I mean, we are assuming that the author is intentionally sitting down and writing a novel, yes. But even pantsers will go back and do edits, and that's what I meant by fixing it in a developmental edit. A story isn't done once you finish writing it, there's post-production work as well to do to fix major narrative issues. If your villain dies for no reason, I'd say that's a pretty large developmental issue! And if you have no reason for the choices that you're making in your novel, it actually will massively help growth as a creator to start being intentional about decisions as it develops your understanding of tropes, narrative structure, theme and all the other technical craft points that are needed for telling a good story!

[scribesunlimited]

Umm...Darth Vader....?

I'm gonna go with a big FALSE.

Also, your antagonist should have a flaw or two that possibly attributes to how their demise comes about. They can either learn from the flaws or not. The antagonist that cannot learn is usually the one you see killed off in almost every story. But there's rule-breaking here too. Sometimes the redemption is the key. An antagonist doesn't have to learn squat, but sacrifices itself for the good cause.

[KRWright]

Darth Vader dies because he supports a fascist regime and even if you turn to the "good side", it's still making a point to the viewer about the consequences of being seduced into fascism... Even his redeeming action where he stands up for Luke doesn't wash the blood of genocide from his hands and thus he dies at the end.

[scribesunlimited]

Even his redeeming action where he stands up for Luke doesn't wash the blood of genocide from his hands and thus he dies at the end.

I'm not sure about that. His genocide could be overlooked because in his sacrifice he ultimately saves the universe.

[KRWright]

I'm not sure about that. His genocide could be overlooked because in his sacrifice he ultimately saves the universe.

Genocide should never be overlooked. That's... that's a bad take.

[scribesunlimited]

I don't mean OVERLOOKED..I mean equalling out.

[KRWright]

I don't mean OVERLOOKED..I mean equalling out.

Nothing equals out genocide.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

No. I see it as the writer saying: This is the message of my story - that these beliefs/actions etc. deserve consequences.

I feel like that's almost the same thing, though; since the consequences are death in this instance. If that is what's 'deserved' for what they've done, that means redemption (which would require them to continue to live) is not an option.

I think the biggest issue here is that you're looking at the antagonist as though they're a real person, when fiction is created with intention and thus characters can't just die for no reason like in the real world.

...I can see where you might have thought that, but that's really not what I meant at all.

Like, when I said "how do you solve the problem of an antagonist that can't be changed for the better?" I was referring to an in-story problem that the characters need to solve, not a writer writing themselves into a hole.

And when I said "sometimes people just die", I didn't mean that as if the real-world chances of accidental death somehow apply to fictional characters. I meant that sometimes a death is just one logical conclusion to a particular situation, not a "message" (citing my own writing as an example). Whether or not a character "deserves" to die is actually a separate issue, at least for me.

[KRWright]

I was referring to an in-story problem that the characters need to solve

Not all characters are set up to try to redeem the antagonist though? Like a lot of stories don't have characters whose goal is to redeem the antagonist, merely stop them. If stopping them means convincing them or killing them - that's more about the protagonists that have been created and what genre your story is than the antagonist themselves.

I meant that sometimes a death is just one logical conclusion to a particular situation, not a "message" (citing my own writing as an example). Whether or not a character "deserves" to die is actually a separate issue, at least for me.

No matter what, you as the creator made every decision for that character leading up to their logical and inevitable demise based on what you believed. If you've written it to where the logical conclusion is death then you may wish to think about how your subconcious is affecting how you work, and again, look at the intentionality behind your work.

[CttMaurice]

In a certain sense, that can be said about all characters. All characters die (unless blatantly immortal). The hero dies eventually, the villain dies eventually, even tavern owner #12937 dies in the end. Not trying to be morbid or anything, its just a natural part of life.

The hero will continue doing heroly things if there is a villain. The villain will continue doing villainy things if it is a true villain. The antagonists are the driving force of the story and as such for the story to "end" the driving force must either be redeemed, detained, or just downright dealt with. There are very little directions that one can go when making that driving force dissapear entirely unless they want the story to go on for a long time.

[HGohwell]

Depends very much on the scope and specifics of the story for me.

One of my favourite "tragic villain" characters killed himself after being raised as a child soldier, brainwashed and abused and afraid for his life, always carrying the wait of what he'd done and finally becoming too much when he finally betrayed his side and gave the heroes the information they needed. And what was most interesting about this example is despite being the most obviously guilty and obviously wanting to escape that life, some even having the "idc about the things I've done, it was the right thing, I just like the hero" mindset (which can be cool in place of a typical redemption and is a separate ramble), he was the only one of the child soldiers the heroes never tried to save while all the others all got your typical shounen "we can still be friends if you just join us" speeches. It was a really interesting case, and frustratingly was never addressed. He quite clearly could have been redeemed and even wanted to be but couldn't figure out any other way beyond his own death.

This actually seems to be a really common thing with child soldiers in scifi. "They're too broken to ever live a normal life" mentality and "death is a mercy". It feels a really bad message that is so rarely done well.

And then you've got characters like Carol (the first time at least) who quite clearly chose her own death over taking the main characters hand and accepting redemption. She didn't want it. She could have (as we see from the seconds time) she had reasonable sympathetic reasons for her rampage and most of what she did was put right, she's a pretty solid candidate for redemption as far as these tings go, and she went nope, I don't want it. Which was pretty cool of her and I do appreciate a villain who rejects the seemingly mandatory redemption arc these days.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Not all characters are set up to try to redeem the antagonist though? Like a lot of stories don't have characters whose goal is to redeem the antagonist, merely stop them. If stopping them means convincing them or killing them - that's more about the protagonists that have been created and what genre your story is than the antagonist themselves.

I mean...okay, but that's kind of irrelevant? All I was saying was that antagonists that won't be dissuaded are usually killed. Whether the protags are or aren't trying to redeem them, or whether anyone else is, or whether it's simply an evident element of their character, my point still stands.

No matter what, you as the creator made every decision for that character leading up to their logical and inevitable demise based on what you believed. If you've written it to where the logical conclusion is death then you may wish to think about how your subconcious is affecting how you work, and again, look at the intentionality behind your work.

Let me try to rephrase what I said: "I meant that sometimes a death is just one logical conclusion that I chose, to resolve a particular situation."

I don't know where you got this idea that I think writing is without intention...the only distinction I'm trying to make is between intention and moral judgement, not intention and lack thereof. =/
The fact that you write that something happens is not the same as thinking that it should be what happens. It can be, but it isn't always. Not every story is a representation of the author's ideals.

[But_a_Jape]

Honestly, I never considered Darth Vader to be redeemed. I know in-universe with him having a force ghost and everything, George Lucas says he was redeemed, but I don't buy it. Especially when you note the inciting event that caused him to betray the Emperor - his boss was trying to kill his son, a son Vader was actively recruiting to the dark side with the intention of eventually overthrowing the Emperor to rule the galaxy together. You break it down like that, and Vader's motives are still very selfish and has little to do with "doing the right thing." Really, even the worst kinds of people would choose to kill their boss over their son - if Heinrich Himmler killed Hitler because Hitler was actively murdering Himmler's son, I don't think anyone would be praising Himmler for saving the world from Nazi Germany.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm not super clear on what the question actually is - there's one part that's asking for our personal philosophy on redemption and another that's asking how we interpret the writer's decisions. So instead of answering True or False, I'll just say that I care more about whether or not the story was told well and if the way the villain's story ends is thematically consistent. If your hero goes around unquestioningly murdering baddies only to let the villain live because "he needs a chance to redeem himself," then I'm calling bullshit (my second comic is actually about my annoyance with this trope, check it out!). But if the whole story constantly brings up the question of redemption and whether or not anyone is beyond it, it would feel like a waste to kill off the main villain without delving deeper into this question. Maybe the villain dies anyway, but if the story brings attention to this fact, then it could still be done well.

I'm reminded of a popular fan idea for how Rise of Skywalker should have ended (spoilers if you care). A lot of people (myself included) don't think Ben Solo was fully redeemed at the end and would have found it far more interesting if he survived (maybe even with Rey dying instead) and had to actively take part in the dissolution of the First Order and reconstruction of a peaceful galaxy. It doesn't need to end with "And Ben was good now so the galaxy got better," and could stick with "Ben did some really messed up stuff and he might be trying to make things right now, but it's fully possible no one will ever forgive him - that doesn't mean he shouldn't try." In my opinion, that's a story I've rarely, if ever, seen and I think that would have been much better than the Return of the Jedi rehash we got.

[Berserker]

The antagonist dying won't necessarily mean they could not be redeemed. I think it would be more tragic if there were hints that they could be redeemed but their choices led to their death anyway.

[Dane_Sherbet]

Not everyone dies because they deserved to die. Some just made a stupid mistake, and death was the result.

It's the same in fiction.

[Iris-Grimoire]

I'd say it... Depends. If the villain's death is to directly fix their mess(maybe they die reversing their Soul-Powered Machine and everyone that died gets their soul back, as an example), at least mostly, then they have been redeemed. But that 5 second "oh no let me jump in front of the hero to take the shot and then have my death throes about how I did the bad thing" that a lot of works do? Absolutely not, minus some really few cases where there was nothing else to be done and fixed other than saving the hero. Sometimes there's not even a point to that sacrifice, and it feels like they just wanted to get away from responsibility more than do one good thing in their sea of bad.

[TAMAnnoying]

I honestly don't think i understand the question? Multi verse and fan fic are big nowadays, I don't think anyone would ever see it as a "finality" as much a "this is just how this happened due to cause an effect" granted their are poorly written stories where its clear the author has no idea what their doing like in batwoman when a villian is killed any everyone is just confused about the cause and effect more then "was this the only way to stop them?"

sometimes people die, sometimes you cant reach everyone you try and connect with. Sometimes the villan would rather fall form the cliff then take the heroes hand. its just how one story can go, but theres always more stories that can end diffrently depending on the diffrent cause and effects.