Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

As a sidenote, that is also why Redemption Equals Death is so popular, is a relatively easy method to finish a Redemption Arc without having to worry about possible setbacks (I'm talking about writing, not ethics)

Pretty much. That's also a big factor on Redemption Equals Death is so big.

IMO, I feel Jaime on both ASOIAF and GOT exist to be a giant "Ok, Redemption Equals Death, but what if you didn't...die and now have to work with what you have". And I feel the answer is pretty much a big "the guilt never will be away"

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jan 13th 2020 at 4:19:43 AM

While is ture that some crime never gone away, there is another issue and is the idea that bad guy need to be humble and kick around before that happen, a "balance of justice" so to speak.

In a way I will said star wars have grow less tolerance of the idea of redemption in general, with kylo existing only for tradition

With redemption arcs, I don't necessarily see what the issue innately is, even with someone like a genocidal fascist. If such people can be redeemed, then that gives me hope.

Mind you, I do think that, as a legal consequence, Redemption Equals Death is perfectly fair for certain crimes. In fact, the person in question would usually agree.

People don't like redemption stories when they're actually for bad people because redemption is hard.

You wouldn't need to say to forgive people if it was easy.

Funny thing, this remind me of rumonori kenshin, who is notable for going against the idea of redemption equals death, saying that dying dosent really solve anything but living you can make a diference, forever minor.

Planescape: Torment actually had an interesting exploration of this concept.

Basically, the main character (The Nameless One) is an immortal being who became immortal to try and atone for an unspeakably horrible thing that caused mass suffering to the dimensions that make up the cosmology of the setting. He wanted to live multiple lifetimes to try and atone for his sins so he could escape punishment, which in the setting is getting his soul sent to fight in a nihilistic death war for untold millennia.

The problem was that the spell that made him immortal had the side effect of making him lose his memories every time he died. And also that every time he was brought back to life, another person died in his stead. Because he lost his memories every time, he also developed a completely different personality every time as well, some of which were total monsters and did extremely cruel and horrible things that you learn about over the course of the game, which include selling people into slavery, killing a skilled linguist who was the last person who could speak a dead tongue for the sake of protecting his belongings and his identity, manipulating a woman's love for him to make her die and turn her into a ghost so she could be useful to him in death, creating a fake religion to manipulate a skilled warrior into basically becoming an indentured servant to him, and abusing a young boy who was his apprentice and contributing to that boy eventually becoming a demented pyromancer who caused immense destruction.

What's interesting is that the game presents all this information to you but because it's a roleplaying game what you make of it is up to you. Personally the game made me identify with The Nameless One so strongly that I felt in some odd way that it was ME who did those terrible things, so I ended up playing a Lawful Good character who was trying to redeem himself and make the world a better place. But even then the best ending still has The Nameless One accepting his fate to be sent to the war, because ultimately his crime was just too great. However, it's still overall a hopeful ending because by accepting the responsibility for his crimes, he's freed from the endless cycle of misery and loss that plagued him for so long. It's actually suggested that what he experienced was even worse than if he had just been sent to the war to begin with.

I think the issue is that forgiveness is culturally suggested to be something you have to do even if it would ultimately be more for the benefit of the wrongdoer's guilt than your own when you were the wronged party. There's nothing inherently wrong with forgiveness itself, only with its imposition.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Jan 13th 2020 at 6:02:04 AM

I always figured the issue have with poorly-done redemption stories is not because of any inherent issue with the concept of redemption, but because the redemption doesn't feel like they earned it or their past crimes are glossed over. Like, a major villain who has murdered dozens or hundreds of people is forgiven forever because they saved one or two civilians, and their past victims are never dwelt upon (or if someone does call them out on their past evil, that person is depicted as horrible and unsympathetic despite that being a perfectly reasonable response). Or, in the worst case, they're forgiven because they rescue the main character/s, which not only brings up the above issue but also paints the protagonist in a bad light for deciding to give the villain a pass because they saved them personally - it makes them appear self-centered.

I think I remember someone saying earlier in this thread that one of the toughest but most necessary lessons to swallow is that, if you do something truly horrible but come to regret it, you're not entitled to expect forgiveness from the victims - sometimes the best thing you can do for them is to simply respect their wish to never have to see or think about you ever again.

Bojack Horseman does a good job of displaying this. The main character (in the beginning) thinks life basically works like a cheesy sitcom where everything has an easy resolution, but he gradually discovers that there are things you do that can never be undone or taken back and that you have to live with the fact that doing those things can irreparably damage your relationship with other people. You just have to move on and do your best with what you have.

I'm also reminded of the adaptation of A Christmas Carol starring Guy Pearce that the BBC made last year. While it was certainly flawed, one of its strengths - in my opinion - was the way it handled the ending. Traditionally at the end of A Christmas Carol the thing that pushes Scrooge to finally change his ways is the knowledge that he'll die alone and unmourned, which when you think about it comes off as pretty selfish.

But in this version, he makes it clear in a final conversation with Jacob Marley's spirit that he actually doesn't care if he dies alone and unmourned because he frankly deserves it for everything he's done, he only cares about preventing Tiny Tim's death - and it's that selflessness that convinces the ghosts that he's redeemed himself. Furthermore, after he agrees to honour Bob Cratchitt's plans to resign from his company and give him a huge sum of money, Mrs. Cratchitt is grateful but makes it plain that this doesn't mean she's forgiven him (and this version of Scrooge was an even bigger bastard than usual).

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jan 13th 2020 at 10:06:25 AM

I will said there is some issues about it, one of them is how much the chararter have to do and how much the audience is willing to take.

Is not surprise the narrative like finn just weasel about it because redemption is not just hard, is unpleasent.

Edited by unknowing on Jan 13th 2020 at 6:08:59 AM

I mean, in his case, he's a textbook "redeeming a villain who actually did nothing (or few) wrong"

Zuko is the same boat: while katara is angry with him, he is more of a team rockey villany: is so goofy and childish that he is easy to redeem, if anything is arc is not about him seeking forgiveness but him being trap in the wrong side and learn to discovering the true way.

Jaime for me is intersting in that he try but his also stumbling into a very realistic issue: how do you redeem? how do you try to do better?

I also.like both Tyrion and Jaime having to face up to the fact that trying to do better when most of the rest of your immediate family are enthusiastically diving into various moral black holes while chained to you both socially and emotionally... is damned hard. Really effing hard.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 13th 2020 at 10:39:32 AM

I feel Tyrion is the only one who could try to do it by the end of the series, with King Bran pretty much putting him in a chance to be The Atoner. Jaime? Death by Guild, actual suicide or just letting himself be killed, but definitely dead by his own will

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jan 13th 2020 at 5:46:12 AM

I agree that it’s crucial to a redemption arc for the character to accept that they don’t deserve to be forgiven. Nothing makes me more frustrated with a Heel–Face Turn than having the character be upset at people’s hostility to them, or unwilling to fave punishment.

It’s why I don’t buy Jaime Lannister’s supposed Heel–Face Turn - he still has a very strong tendency to self-justify and think that people are harsher on him than he deserves, that he’s misunderstood. Even while he continues fighting on the wrong side of a war. Even when he breaks his promise to Catelyn and captures Riverrun by threatening a child’s life, he continues thinking he’s doing the best he can.

Someone who is genuinely repentent will accept punishment and accept having their apologies thrown back in their face. (That’s one of the things that makes Zuko’s Heel–Face Turn really work, even if, as others have noted, he hasn’t - on a comparative level - done a lot of wrong, and has reduced culpability due to being an indoctrinated child.)

I think redemption is a gift that is given, not earned, so I’m okay with pretty much any character being redeemed if they’re sincerely repentent. That does entail realizing that their evil actions were wrong, and regretting harm done even to people they didn’t know - not just feeling bad about hurting a loved one but not really caring about anyone else who was harmed. (I do think Vader’s redemption fulfills that quality, though. It’s pretty clear from his conversation with Luke on Endor that he does recognize that he’s evil and does regret it, but thinks he’s too far gone to even try to be anything else. It’s not just about seeing Luke be tortured - it’s also about Luke’s rejection of the Datk Side showing him that it’s possible to resist.)

For me, there isn’t some baseline level of recompense a character has to make in order to be redeemed, because there are some things you can never make recompense for.

I would call Dalinar in Oathbringer (third book of Brandom Sanderson’s Stormlight Archive series) an example of a well-done redemption arc.

Edited by Galadriel on Jan 13th 2020 at 6:19:57 AM

There is a difference between redemption/repentance (I'll define repentance as the desire for redemption) and forgiveness.

Whether or not a person is redeemed is not subject to human opinion per se and requires nobody's permission except for the sinner in question. Forgiveness, however, can only be done by the victim(s). For redemption, a person is neither requires forgiveness nor does redemption entitle a person to forgiveness.

Now, as for forgiveness, I typically would argue it's something that a person should be pretty generous with (at least, toward the repentant) for various reasons. The most obvious one is simple mathematics of turning an enemy into a friend, which is the best form of victory. Typically, revenge should be avoided.

Having said that, and this is key: Forgiveness absolutely does not mean you have to give a person more opportunities to commit wrongdoings, and there are motives for penalizing someone other than simple revenge. For example: to prevent them from repeating their crimes, to rehabilitate them, and to intimidate the next guy who is considering committing the same crime.

For example, let's say a person murders their spouse and gets caught, but is repentant. The state would not strictly be the wrong if they decided to put the convict to death, nor is doing so entirely incompatible with a specific type of forgiveness. They're giving the murderer an opportunity to never hurt anyone again and even to serve as an important example and hopefully prevent others from committing the same crime. This is something that can be done pragmatically, not necessarily out of revenge or hatred.

Of course, putting someone to the death is an extreme example and not necessarily the most pragmatic method of penalty for any crime. To its credit, though, it does have notoriously low recidivism rates which makes it arguably suitable for crimes like homicide.

The death penalty is useless as a deterrent because most people who commit a crime aren’t expecting to be caught. In general, countries with the most lenient justice systems and the least unpleasant prison systems (e.g., Scandanavia) have among the lowest recidivism rates, while at the other end of the scale...there’s the US. So if a murderer is sincerely repentent (and therefore unlikely to reoffend), there’s no benefit in executing them.

That said, and returning to the topic at hand, I agree that a character who has done wrong and is repentent needs to be willing to accept punishment (which may or may not be offered) and willing to accept that people will mistrust them.

Repentance is something more than the desire for redemption; it’s a deliberate choice to turn away from evil and do good. The person may have very little time to do good (in cases of Redemption Equals Death) or very little capacity to contribute anything of value, and no ability to make any meaningful amends for the evil they’ve done, but some willingness to seek to be a better person is part of the meaning of redemption.

Edited by Galadriel on Jan 13th 2020 at 6:33:12 AM

To be fair one aspect of jaime is that he is right in one thing: a some point why he should atempt to be better for them? everyone hates aerys guts and yet he get shit for doing what ned or robert would have done anyway(and in case of robert for far pettiest reason) robert get the throne, ned get be warden of the north and Jaime what it gets? to witness aerys depravity while being the kinslayer for saving the kindom?.

In some way people expect Jaime to die like a minion so people can easy their mental peace.

In case of tyrion, is intersting the thing that haunt him the most is the one fan forgive him, killing is father, and he must that over and over and for one simple reason: if he is not a lannister, them what he is?.

I get one reason do bad thing is because sometimes they are chain by something else they fight, sure there are stuff you cant never repence, the issue is them the only option is a sort of martydom: you suffer and you die trying so there is a level of romantic atach to that.

This should at least take into account the justness and proportionality of the punishment. If the punishment for theft is to have your hands cut off, then I won’t require an ex-thief to go through that to consider them properly repentant.

Edited by Novis on Jan 13th 2020 at 4:54:29 AM

Also in a way someone need a silver lenning to cling on, otherwise is just demanding sadomashocism in order of redemption.

One of the best takes on Zuko I've heard mentioned exactly that.

Hot take: Zuko was never redeemed, because Zuko never did anything that he needed to be redeemed for. He thought he had, but the crime that got him exiled from the Fire Nation was standing up for the lives of their "disposable" soldiers.

Zuko was on a quest to find his honor, but Zuko's actual character journey was about realizing that he'd never lost it. That, indeed, Zuko was the only person in the Fire Nation military (his uncle Iroh excepted) who actually had any honor in the first place. Zuko was not a shitty human being that needed to learn not to be shitty; his nation was a shitty place that needed Zuko's particular brand of not-shittiness to lead it back in the right direction.

Personally, I think the biggest reason why it's difficult to do redemption stories well is because they put too much emphasis on that word. Redemption. As in, absolution. Forgiveness. Being abruptly declared to no longer be shitty by some abstract authority or another.

Redemption is stupid. People should stop writing redemption.

Instead, we need more stories about rehabilitation. Working hard and making strides towards changing who you are as a person. Trying to make amends for crimes committed and accepting when amends cannot be made - remember: people are not obligated to accept your apology. Sometimes the best thing you can do for someone you've hurt is to just stop being in their life. Sometimes they don't want your apologies or your amends; they just want to never have to look at your face again. And that's their right.

Rather than this one big dramatic moment where ALL IS FORGIVEN and a person is NO LONGER BAD, we need more emphasis on the journey of rehabilitation. Of accepting that you were wrong, of understanding why you were wrong, and of changing your beliefs to stop being wrong. Redemption is overrated; rehabilitation's where it's at.

That's why, while Zuko might not really count as a redemption, he's a pretty good case of rehabilitation. Because we do see him challenging his beliefs, realizing the error in his worldview, and changing as a person. Zuko may not have committed any heinous slights to seek redemption for, but he has perpetrated evil due to a crooked belief system and is ultimately forced to face and overcome that belief system to become a better person.

Darth Vader's redemption makes him a brutal authoritarian mass-murderer who loves his son. Zuko's rehabilitation makes him a wise leader who recognizes the folly in Might Makes Right philosophy, understands that other cultures deserve to exist and are in no way inferior to his own, and respects the bonds of friendship and family. One of these is substantially better than the other.

A corpse can't change its stripes.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jan 13th 2020 at 5:33:01 AM

I really think there's a difference between those but saying that one is "better" than the other just sounds...a bit silly to be frank

Yeah, specially since it dosent adress the point: zuko can be rehabilited because the narrative make him a victim of the fire nation but never a perpetrator on is own, his evil is annoying on some level but never get the point he cross any line to the audience who are the truly judge of any media.

After all have zuko harm katara, or sokka, can he truly be rehabilitated? he get better because the narrative allow him to never get into a bad point, zuko is like that school kid with problematic parents, or that kid who is getting drugs, they are salvage but they didnt cross any bounderies.

Edited by unknowing on Jan 13th 2020 at 9:23:34 AM

I would argue that Zuko did need to redeem himself for a lot of the things he did, like attacking the Souther Water tribe in the pilot and siding with Azula in the Earth Kingdom...

And that he successfully did so by helping the Gaang when they desperately needed his help several times, most notably the first time saving Aang from Zhao as the Blue Spirit and most permanently in the end by becoming Aang's Firebending teacher and friend in time to prepare both Aang and the Fire Nation for Sozin's Comet and its aftermath.

I admit, one interesting case of redemption is Vergil from DEVIL MAY CRY with V being the part of Vergil that was forced from the demon part. The human part still hates Dante and wishes him dead but is willing to save humanity from destruction. However, his death is required to do so even though it resurrects and reunites him with his dark half. It's not remotely related to real life but makes me wonder what Vergil will get from that sort of "atonement."