I find this video very interesting because it's something you never really think about, some people call specific characters "un-redeemable" when in reality there thinking of the character being forgiven, redemption is simply the action of changing one way for the better good. This video deserves more view, also I think I will use this new outlook in the story I'm making right now.
I'm glad you liked it man. Yeah, a lot of discourse on redemption felt incredibly one-dimensional, and I just feel like I'd had to put my own two-cents in. Thanks for commenting.
Your video pretty much hit the topic on all ends. But I wouldn't describe Vader as a 'genocidal maniac'. He only ever killed the Jedi and it wasn't so much that he was accepted as a Jedi again by Obi-Wan and Yoda, but rather it was because he saved his son. He actually did something selfless for his family that earned him back his place as a Jedi.
I push back on the idea that 'he only ever killed Jedi', he might've only directly killed Jedi, (and even that I'm not sure about ) but he's still complicit in pretty much all of the empire's crimes. (He actively supported the creation of the Death Star, and tried to defend it when the rebels destroyed it.) And the Death Star destroyed Alderaan. You're right that 'genocidal maniac' isn't entirely accurate if you know his character, but from the perspective of all the rebels, it wouldn't be wrong to describe him that way. Thanks for commenting.
As someone equally frustrated with this kind of discourse, I appreciate this. Kind of a similar thing with mercy. If you deserve mercy, then you have no need for it. Mercy only exists for those who don't deserve it. I do think there's also a case to be made for characters who die on what I call a "redemption trajectory", where a character hasn't quite entered redemption mode but was clearly headed in that direction. A recent example that comes to mind is (lategame spoilers for Fire Emblem Engage) a character named Marni. Her and the miniboss squad she's a part of commit some heinous deeds throughout the game's story. However, the leader of said squad openly expresses dissatisfaction with her and another member, Mauvier, from time to time, even exercising physical retribution upon them for their failures (slightly ironic in the case of Mauvier as he's typically the hardest one of the group to deal with in gameplay). However, the leader finally goes a step too far in their eyes by essentially slave-crowning an ally of theirs, so Marni and Mauvier turn against the group, and Marni is ultimately killed in an attempt to free that person, while Mauvier survives the ensuing battle. (To play a bit of devil's advocate, I will note that the primary motivation for trying to save said person was familiarity, and little to do with the actual morality of harming someone. Hence, "trajectory".) The fandom as a whole sees Marni, but not Mauvier, as every bit the monster as the rest of the group. And I find this frustrating, because while she definitely has some personality issues exclusive to her (not to mention the atrocities committed by her and this group, *Mauvier included*), she and Mauvier are essentially in the same moral clique... and Mauvier DOES get a redemption arc. Because he actually survives long enough to see the error of his ways and atone. That's literally the only major difference in their respective situations. That he didn't die. All it takes is a little imagination to realize that if she'd also survived, that she'd have become a better person, too. And I think it's worth giving her that bit of credit. (Although Mauvier is a somewhat divisive character because of the aforementioned atrocities, so it's not like he gets off completely scot-free by the fandom.) ... I don't know, it's a lot of concern to be had over such a minor character (lol), but that kind of shit really does grind my gears. Although the collective Fire Emblem fandom *has* had dumber takes than this, so I don't know.
Thanks, I'm glad you liked the video. Yeah, takes around redemption have felt really "one-dimensional" for awhile now. Glad to see discourse with different ideas. I think characters becoming better people leads to better stories too.
Just to add to this discussion and this is something I saw in the other comments, one thing that I find frustrating is how much people put punishment and suffering on a pedestal when deciding whether a character ''deserves'' redemption or not. Probably as an opposite extreme to characters being easily forgiven, there's this belief that if a character did atrocities before, in order to have a good redemption they must suffer twice so it's fair game...and while I think it does make sense for these characters to not be forgiven, I think this view is shortsighted and is directly related with considering redemption and forgiveness as synonimous with each other. Not only I feel this reduces a redemption to the equivalent of paying taxes (If someone breaks my arm and I break both of theirs. Does that mean everthing is now forgiven?), but I think it also simplifies a bit too much what truly means to be redeemed, sometimes suffering is not the answer for a character to change, nor is the only way for them to pay for their crimes. If I had to pick an example it would be Gaara. He didn't change for the better by suffering more, it was finding someone who could understand him in Naruto that he became a better person, in fact it was pain that turned him into a monster in the first place. Punishing Gaara with twice the suffering wouldn't have redeemed him, it would have just reinforced his beliefs, and needless to say he eventually paid for his crimes by making his village a better place when he became a Kazekage. I have a similar opinion in regards to Sasuke Uchiha and how the fandom discusses his redemption, but that's another can of worms. (Tho it also involves the opinion some groups have that he should have died instead, which I think contributes to another problem of using a character's death as an easy way out to avoid exploring the deeper implications of their redemption) Simply put, redemption is a much more nuanced and grey issue that doesn't get proper credit.
While I think that you don't require a redemption of a character to make them good it definitely does peak interest in many ways. (it also does help the character alot.)
If redemption is impossible, then it becomes a matter of "why bother?" However, if a character attempting redemption only makes things worse or doesn't aid those that they did harm to, they haven't ever earned it. See Abby from TLOU2. Mr. Freeze in Batman Beyond wanted to overlook a man who tried to assassinate him in broad daylight because of what he did in the past. Mr. Freeze was working towards true redemption out of regret of his actions, Abby never does and only helps others when it's convenient for her to to look good.
Perhaps this is a bit off-topic but this reminds me of the whole rehabilitation vs punishment dichotomy for our justice system. Is it fair to say that you fall more on the side of rehabilitation to get people to become good and contributing members of society? Anyways this is a really nice video and thank you so much for sharing!
This is a good fucking video, for some reason the idea of redemption being a choice of a bad guy rather than a judgment of other characters or fans never occurred to me
It varies depending on how bad the villains actions were, if a character is a genocidal mass murder, it should take a very long journey for that character to ultimately realize that their way was wrong. The path to redemption also should be linear, criminals do regress all the time. Ideally it's a bumpy, arduous path.
He saying is a must for u forgive the person, as long as the person realize his actions and is willing to pay the prize they can be redeemed, choosing to forgive is up to u
I mean there also Palatine, kid buu, and other that won't or can't be redeemed because they is what they are pure evil yet they have their character while still representing true evil but it fiction anything and wants can happen might not be a real or main cannon but it doesn't really matter
True but like he said the only thing needed for redemption is if the person is willing to change so by your logic yes palpatine and kid buu are irredeemable but only because they don't want to change
Joker can't be redeemed because he's not the kind of character that'd ever seek redemption, but if he ever wanted to, then yes, even he could be redeemed.
Redemption is found through Christ for this world you have to go through things in order to be redeemed but for God all you have to do is deny your old self turn to Christ and follow him
@@bluetooth4916 cuz it's true world's like I won't forgive you you have to go through one heck of a redemption art just to do that and Christ is like I don't care what you have done just come back home you don't have to suffer here anymore
I find this video very interesting because it's something you never really think about, some people call specific characters "un-redeemable" when in reality there thinking of the character being forgiven, redemption is simply the action of changing one way for the better good. This video deserves more view, also I think I will use this new outlook in the story I'm making right now.
I'm glad you liked it man. Yeah, a lot of discourse on redemption felt incredibly one-dimensional, and I just feel like I'd had to put my own two-cents in. Thanks for commenting.
Your video pretty much hit the topic on all ends. But I wouldn't describe Vader as a 'genocidal maniac'. He only ever killed the Jedi and it wasn't so much that he was accepted as a Jedi again by Obi-Wan and Yoda, but rather it was because he saved his son. He actually did something selfless for his family that earned him back his place as a Jedi.
I push back on the idea that 'he only ever killed Jedi', he might've only directly killed Jedi, (and even that I'm not sure about ) but he's still complicit in pretty much all of the empire's crimes. (He actively supported the creation of the Death Star, and tried to defend it when the rebels destroyed it.) And the Death Star destroyed Alderaan. You're right that 'genocidal maniac' isn't entirely accurate if you know his character, but from the perspective of all the rebels, it wouldn't be wrong to describe him that way. Thanks for commenting.
Also can't forget stuff from other sources where he's killed way more people
As someone equally frustrated with this kind of discourse, I appreciate this. Kind of a similar thing with mercy. If you deserve mercy, then you have no need for it. Mercy only exists for those who don't deserve it.
I do think there's also a case to be made for characters who die on what I call a "redemption trajectory", where a character hasn't quite entered redemption mode but was clearly headed in that direction. A recent example that comes to mind is
(lategame spoilers for Fire Emblem Engage)
a character named Marni. Her and the miniboss squad she's a part of commit some heinous deeds throughout the game's story. However, the leader of said squad openly expresses dissatisfaction with her and another member, Mauvier, from time to time, even exercising physical retribution upon them for their failures (slightly ironic in the case of Mauvier as he's typically the hardest one of the group to deal with in gameplay). However, the leader finally goes a step too far in their eyes by essentially slave-crowning an ally of theirs, so Marni and Mauvier turn against the group, and Marni is ultimately killed in an attempt to free that person, while Mauvier survives the ensuing battle. (To play a bit of devil's advocate, I will note that the primary motivation for trying to save said person was familiarity, and little to do with the actual morality of harming someone. Hence, "trajectory".)
The fandom as a whole sees Marni, but not Mauvier, as every bit the monster as the rest of the group. And I find this frustrating, because while she definitely has some personality issues exclusive to her (not to mention the atrocities committed by her and this group, *Mauvier included*), she and Mauvier are essentially in the same moral clique... and Mauvier DOES get a redemption arc. Because he actually survives long enough to see the error of his ways and atone. That's literally the only major difference in their respective situations. That he didn't die. All it takes is a little imagination to realize that if she'd also survived, that she'd have become a better person, too. And I think it's worth giving her that bit of credit. (Although Mauvier is a somewhat divisive character because of the aforementioned atrocities, so it's not like he gets off completely scot-free by the fandom.)
... I don't know, it's a lot of concern to be had over such a minor character (lol), but that kind of shit really does grind my gears. Although the collective Fire Emblem fandom *has* had dumber takes than this, so I don't know.
Thanks, I'm glad you liked the video. Yeah, takes around redemption have felt really "one-dimensional" for awhile now. Glad to see discourse with different ideas. I think characters becoming better people leads to better stories too.
Very insightful take on the topics of redemption and forgiveness, I'll apply it to my future stories and life.
Glad you liked it. Thanks for commenting.
Nice video, I’ve always liked redemption characters
Glad you liked it. Thanks for commenting.
Just to add to this discussion and this is something I saw in the other comments, one thing that I find frustrating is how much people put punishment and suffering on a pedestal when deciding whether a character ''deserves'' redemption or not.
Probably as an opposite extreme to characters being easily forgiven, there's this belief that if a character did atrocities before, in order to have a good redemption they must suffer twice so it's fair game...and while I think it does make sense for these characters to not be forgiven, I think this view is shortsighted and is directly related with considering redemption and forgiveness as synonimous with each other.
Not only I feel this reduces a redemption to the equivalent of paying taxes (If someone breaks my arm and I break both of theirs. Does that mean everthing is now forgiven?), but I think it also simplifies a bit too much what truly means to be redeemed, sometimes suffering is not the answer for a character to change, nor is the only way for them to pay for their crimes.
If I had to pick an example it would be Gaara. He didn't change for the better by suffering more, it was finding someone who could understand him in Naruto that he became a better person, in fact it was pain that turned him into a monster in the first place. Punishing Gaara with twice the suffering wouldn't have redeemed him, it would have just reinforced his beliefs, and needless to say he eventually paid for his crimes by making his village a better place when he became a Kazekage.
I have a similar opinion in regards to Sasuke Uchiha and how the fandom discusses his redemption, but that's another can of worms. (Tho it also involves the opinion some groups have that he should have died instead, which I think contributes to another problem of using a character's death as an easy way out to avoid exploring the deeper implications of their redemption)
Simply put, redemption is a much more nuanced and grey issue that doesn't get proper credit.
Props to you , I’ve been saying this for awhile , but I think you worded it better than I could have
I'm glad we agree. Thanks for commenting.
While I think that you don't require a redemption of a character to make them good it definitely does peak interest in many ways. (it also does help the character alot.)
If redemption is impossible, then it becomes a matter of "why bother?"
However, if a character attempting redemption only makes things worse or doesn't aid those that they did harm to, they haven't ever earned it. See Abby from TLOU2. Mr. Freeze in Batman Beyond wanted to overlook a man who tried to assassinate him in broad daylight because of what he did in the past. Mr. Freeze was working towards true redemption out of regret of his actions, Abby never does and only helps others when it's convenient for her to to look good.
Redemption is an internal act of change. You can argue that it's bad writing for a character to be redeemed, but 'earned' is such a weird word to use.
Perhaps this is a bit off-topic but this reminds me of the whole rehabilitation vs punishment dichotomy for our justice system. Is it fair to say that you fall more on the side of rehabilitation to get people to become good and contributing members of society? Anyways this is a really nice video and thank you so much for sharing!
Yeah I do skew more towards rehabilitation, as does basically all research on the matter. I'm glad you liked the video. Thanks for commenting.
Great video
Thanks, glad you liked it.
This is a good fucking video,
for some reason the idea of redemption being a choice of a bad guy rather than a judgment of other characters or fans never occurred to me
I'm glad I could open your eyes a bit, thanks for commenting.
I have a question, how the story can convince the audience that their villain can be redeemed, and what are the aspects required to show?
It varies depending on how bad the villains actions were, if a character is a genocidal mass murder, it should take a very long journey for that character to ultimately realize that their way was wrong. The path to redemption also should be linear, criminals do regress all the time. Ideally it's a bumpy, arduous path.
Naive to assume anybody can be redeemed
He saying is a must for u forgive the person, as long as the person realize his actions and is willing to pay the prize they can be redeemed, choosing to forgive is up to u
@@arinzechukwuonyekwuluje2218 ok fair point
I mean there also Palatine, kid buu, and other that won't or can't be redeemed because they is what they are pure evil yet they have their character while still representing true evil but it fiction anything and wants can happen might not be a real or main cannon but it doesn't really matter
True but like he said the only thing needed for redemption is if the person is willing to change so by your logic yes palpatine and kid buu are irredeemable but only because they don't want to change
@sandwichdbob2290 exactly
Joker
Joker can't be redeemed because he's not the kind of character that'd ever seek redemption, but if he ever wanted to, then yes, even he could be redeemed.
@@Telamon-man I like you
Yes
Glad we agree.
Redemption is found through Christ for this world you have to go through things in order to be redeemed but for God all you have to do is deny your old self turn to Christ and follow him
Bro why bring that up here.?
@@bluetooth4916 cuz it's true world's like I won't forgive you you have to go through one heck of a redemption art just to do that and Christ is like I don't care what you have done just come back home you don't have to suffer here anymore