Redemption in BIONICLE

[Sergei Rahkmaninoff]

Sticking to the inner light/inner shadow reality: is it right to completely expel one or the other? We have seen the Makuta sucking inner light from the av-matoran, making them their evil servants, out of their will. Then they were "cured", still out of their will. Gavla did not want to be cured, however, and longed to become evil once more. If everyone had their inner shadow expelled, what world would come out of that? Would it be a good world, one worth living in? Would you agree to have your inner shadow sucked out?

 

Theoretically, 'inner light' is by definition 'an inclination to do right' and 'inner shadow' is 'an inclination to do wrong.' Therefore it can be concluded that it is always right to try expel inner shadow, and always wrong to try expel inner light.

 

Would I be able to agree to have my inner shadow sucked from me? I don't know. The inner shadow tells me that doing good is weak, and evil is fun that I really don't want to miss out on. It would take a lot of strength already to overcome that dark and make the decision to have it all removed forever, but I would like to think that I have enough inner light already that I could.

 

Gavla, though, was already dominated by darkness by a small margin before being attacked by a Shadow Leech, I think. So when she was 'cured,' it restored her to normal, which had enough good to keep her from helping the Makuta, but also enough evil to miss being filled entirely with darkness.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Sergei Rahkmaninoff

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Well think of it this way, Too much of a good thing can be equally bad as not enough. See ones inner shadow helps to amplify the quality of the inner light by bringing dark thoughts and deeds to the idea stage. Without that taste of inner shadow everything you do would be thought good. Even if it was not. It is similar to the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Because if the inner shadow they knew eating of the tree was wrong. Yet did it anyway via influences of a dark force. Because of they we now remorse. So I would have to vote to have my inner shadow intact because it helps me understand what is bad. Without it I would have no remorse for doing anything because I supposedly believe anything I do is good. That's if I even understood the difference between the two. Understand.

[Taipu1]

Redemption is the opinion of others really, so its pretty much an impossible goal unless everyone has forgiven you.  But are any characters capable of redemption in my personal opinion?  For me it would come down to motivations.  Ahkmou is the only character immediately coming to mind who I think could be redeemed.  His motivations were misguided rather than purely greed as the majority of Bionicle villains seem to be.  Bionicle seems to lack villains with more human motivations, such as revenge for loss and actions caused by fear.  It's a negative I hadn't considered before, that most of the villains are just power hungry. 

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

With that said, I think the only 'bad guy' that could be redeemed is Brutaka. And that is only because he was bored to begin with. He believed the Order had just abandoned him and his talents. Maybe Strakk and Malum as they probably had their anger get the best of them.

Dude, Malum maimed a fighter in an arena match, purposefully killed one in another, and almost killed Strak. And when in exile Malum approached a band of vorox and challenged the leader. In the ensuing fight, while being hurt himself, Malum had cut and sliced the band leader, and while his opponent was down he picked up a fairly large rock/small boulder and threw it down upon his foe, smashing him to death. As the band leader of this particular group of vorox he has attacked and killed traders and travelers with his sandy minions. IRL I believe 99% of people can be redeemed, but with Malum I just don't know.

 

Strak on the other hand, he has a chance to not follow the same path.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Iaredios Paerkenon

[Millennium]

 

With that said, I think the only 'bad guy' that could be redeemed is Brutaka. And that is only because he was bored to begin with. He believed the Order had just abandoned him and his talents. Maybe Strakk and Malum as they probably had their anger get the best of them.

 

Dude, Malum maimed a fighter in an arena match, purposefully killed one in another, and almost killed Strak. And when in exile Malum approached a band of vorox and challenged the leader. In the ensuing fight, while being hurt himself, Malum had cut and sliced the band leader, and while his opponent was down he picked up a fairly large rock/small boulder and threw it down upon his foe, smashing him to death. As the band leader of this particular group of vorox he has attacked and killed traders and travelers with his sandy minions. IRL I believe 98% of people can be redeemed, but with Malum I just don't know.

 

Strak on the other hand, he has a chance to not follow the same path.

It's Strakk. I see your point though. I've never seen Malum under this light before.

[Xeo]

 

With that said, I think the only 'bad guy' that could be redeemed is Brutaka. And that is only because he was bored to begin with. He believed the Order had just abandoned him and his talents. Maybe Strakk and Malum as they probably had their anger get the best of them.

Dude, Malum maimed a fighter in an arena match, purposefully killed one in another, and almost killed Strak. And when in exile Malum approached a band of vorox and challenged the leader. In the ensuing fight, while being hurt himself, Malum had cut and sliced the band leader, and while his opponent was down he picked up a fairly large rock/small boulder and threw it down upon his foe, smashing him to death. As the band leader of this particular group of vorox he has attacked and killed traders and travelers with his sandy minions. IRL I believe 98% of people can be redeemed, but with Malum I just don't know.

 

Strakk on the other hand, he has a chance to not follow the same path.

 

 

Malum is vicious and a threat yes. But I still believe he is a product of his both his world and his emotions. Living that harshly will get to you. With Spherus Magna formed I could see him slowly mellowing out and trying to redeem himself. On the flip side it could be too late, since he is living in the wilderness already.

[Alyska]

I like the idea of villains who are villains by accident, by circumstance, by misunderstanding, by toxic views inherited from others- that, to me, is much more realistic than the take-over-the-world, killing for fun type. Bionicle has a lot of villains that are evil just because. The Piraka are evil because all Skakdi are brutal by nature and their culture encourages it. The Makuta are all evil because they drained out their light. The Barraki are evil because... uh... they're just jerks, okay? When characters are evil because they just are, it's hard to find a believable motivation for them to want to live a virtuous life. But if their "evil" is a product of circumstance, it's more plausible that the good part of their nature could come out if circumstances changed.

 

Bionicle is set up the way it is for a reason- the baddies have to be a different species from the good guys because the Toa are stand-ins for humans, and Lego has policies against the depiction of humans committing violence against humans. But it also leads to the implication that people are evil because of the way they are born, not because of the choices that they make or the influence of external factors. There have been exceptions in the serials and other "side" stories, but these tend to be good guys gone bad (Nidhiki, Tuyet) rather than the other way around. So, clearly it's in part the nature of the toy-driven storyline at play, and partly Greg's personal preference.

 

That said, there is a huge spectrum of morality present in Bionicle. One "evil" character with the potential for redemption is Lariska. She's killed Toa, under orders and maybe for her own purposes as well, but she's also been shown to develop genuine friendships (e.g.with Nidhiki, possibly Brutaka), and be motivated by vengence over what as done to Nidhiki. She's never been in direct opposition to the protagonists, and last we saw she was teamed up with Tahu, trying to fight Makuta. I can definitely see her finding a place in Spherus Magna society, though I doubt she'd ever be completely opposed to killing enemies when keeping them alive is inconvenient.

 

I think the deciding factor here is the character's ability to actually care about others- if a character is lacking that, then there is simply no path to redemption. That's not to say anyone who cares about anyone can be redeemed (I still don't buy the widespread posthumous forgiveness of Darth Vader just because he didn't kill his own son, in spite of the millions of other lives he took), but it's definitely a start. Villains who care are not common in Bionicle as far as established canon goes, though it'd be interesting to see a few headcanons on this... 

[Eyru]

Interestingly enough, I think Teridax originally had huge potential for redemption (back when he was "the Makuta" instead of Teridax).

 

When BIONICLE began, it was stated that the Makuta became jealous of his brother because the Matoran worshipped Mata Nui and not him. When you think about it, that's sort of reasonable, right? Who wouldn't get a little jealous when everyone loves your brother and hates you? So Makuta casts Mata Nui down, but the Matoran don't revere him: they just see him as more evil than before. Makuta then grows bitter and unleashes his anger on the Matoran, preferring to see them wiped out if they won't revere him like they do his brother.

 

It was only later that the whole "rule the universe" plan was introduced, with its thousand-year schemes and goals. It was this change that turned Makuta into Teridax. What's the difference, you ask? Simple. It's all in the motivation.

 

The difference between a villain with a shot at redemption and a villain without lies in the motivation for the evil things they do. A villain motivated by normal human emotions is still relatable, and thus still slightly sympathetic. A villain whose motivation is a lust for power, however, or a villain whose motivation is a love of inflicting pain upon others, generally can't be redeemed.

 

An example of a redeemable villain is Darth Vader. Vader committs some heinous crimes, including slaughtering young children, killing millions of innocent people, and helping a psychopath rise to power and create a galactic empire. But in the end, Vader is still redeemable because he was motivated by love. Yes, his love grows increasingly twisted and confused as he continues his descent to the dark side, but the original motivation for his actions was love. Love for his wife, and fear that the visions he saw of her death would come to pass. That's relatable - any one of us might feel the same way. Imagine if the person you loved more than anything else in the world was going to die, and there was only one way to save them. Because Vader's initial motivation is based on love, he is able to be redeemed by his love for his son.

 

An example of a unredeemable villain: Emperor Palpatine. The Emperor is worse than Darth Vader: not only did he commit crimes of his own, but he was the influence for all of Vader's evil deeds as well. But, unlike Vader, the Emperor's motivation is not love. Nor is it fear. As far as we know, he is motivated by a lust for power, and seems to openly enjoy inflicting pain and torture on other people. That kind of person can't be redeemed; there's nothing "human" about him anymore. His desires stem from inherently unlikable things, unlike Vader's desires, which were originally born out of love. That's why, in the end, the Emperor must die while Vader is allowed to be redeemed: one of them is a human gone wrong, while the other is a monster.

 

Is one type of villain better than the other? Not necessarily. They each have their uses in a story, and some people simply prefer one to the other. In the end, they are both villains.

[Mocmaker]

--snip--

 

Enough about me. The point I'm interested in discussing is one raised by the person who asked Greg this ill-fated question: what would it take to redeem some of BIONICLE's villains? The OP cited the Barraki and Makuta Miserix as potential candidates for redemption, but I'm interested in hearing about any and all villains' possibilities. What would it take to redeem Ahkmou? Vezok? And if anyone's really ambitious: what would it take to redeem Makuta Teridax?

 

Both of the above discussion points, and any additional ones related to the subject, are welcome here. I think this is a very interesting discussion to have.

To redeem those characters?  Not much; just a simple extension of kindness can change even the worst of villains.

 

I think it would be cool if they did have at least one villain turn good. 

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

Interestingly enough, I think Teridax originally had huge potential for redemption (back when he was "the Makuta" instead of Teridax).

 

When BIONICLE began, it was stated that the Makuta became jealous of his brother because the Matoran worshipped Mata Nui and not him. When you think about it, that's sort of reasonable, right? Who wouldn't get a little jealous when everyone loves your brother and hates you? So Makuta casts Mata Nui down, but the Matoran don't revere him: they just see him as more evil than before. Makuta then grows bitter and unleashes his anger on the Matoran, preferring to see them wiped out if they won't revere him like they do his brother.

 

It was only later that the whole "rule the universe" plan was introduced, with its thousand-year schemes and goals. It was this change that turned Makuta into Teridax. What's the difference, you ask? Simple. It's all in the motivation.

 

The difference between a villain with a shot at redemption and a villain without lies in the motivation for the evil things they do. A villain motivated by normal human emotions is still relatable, and thus still slightly sympathetic. A villain whose motivation is a lust for power, however, or a villain whose motivation is a love of inflicting pain upon others, generally can't be redeemed.

 

An example of a redeemable villain is Darth Vader. Vader committs some heinous crimes, including slaughtering young children, killing millions of innocent people, and helping a psychopath rise to power and create a galactic empire. But in the end, Vader is still redeemable because he was motivated by love. Yes, his love grows increasingly twisted and confused as he continues his descent to the dark side, but the original motivation for his actions was love. Love for his wife, and fear that the visions he saw of her death would come to pass. That's relatable - any one of us might feel the same way. Imagine if the person you loved more than anything else in the world was going to die, and there was only one way to save them. Because Vader's initial motivation is based on love, he is able to be redeemed by his love for his son.

 

An example of a unredeemable villain: Emperor Palpatine. The Emperor is worse than Darth Vader: not only did he commit crimes of his own, but he was the influence for all of Vader's evil deeds as well. But, unlike Vader, the Emperor's motivation is not love. Nor is it fear. As far as we know, he is motivated by a lust for power, and seems to openly enjoy inflicting pain and torture on other people. That kind of person can't be redeemed; there's nothing "human" about him anymore. His desires stem from inherently unlikable things, unlike Vader's desires, which were originally born out of love. That's why, in the end, the Emperor must die while Vader is allowed to be redeemed: one of them is a human gone wrong, while the other is a monster.

 

Is one type of villain better than the other? Not necessarily. They each have their uses in a story, and some people simply prefer one to the other. In the end, they are both villains.

Interesting. Thanks for showing the differences between Bob Thompson's The Makuta, and Greg Farshety's Makuta Teridax. in my head canon, Teridax is kind of like a hero that initially falls like Darth Vader, but after hearing of Mutran's information regarding Tren Krom and the truth regarding Mata Nui and the Matoran Universe, and especially while secluded in thought while frozen in protodermis, he began his journey into the monster that we know later. The legends of the matoran only remember what they personally knew about him, not knowing of "plans within plans".

[toa kopaka4372]

I'm seeing a lot of "most of BIONICLE's villains were evil for the sake of being evil/just power-hungry" posts in this topic, and I have to disagree. To quote myself from another thread:

 

Tuma, for example, most certainly wasn't evil because he liked being evil- he was ruthless and merciless because he carried the burden of being the last Skrall of his kind and the responsibility to ensure the survival of his entire species from monsters (the Battera) that were intent on wiping them out. Nidhiki was an individual who truly loved being a hero but made one idiotic mistake due to his own pragmatic outlook that made him an outcast. When he attempted to get away from the Dark Hunters and start over, he was mutated into what he hated most. His actions from then on were a result of trauma and intense hatred, not of some inherently evil nature. Tuyet was mentally unstable, but her actions were, at their core, motivated by a genuine desire to help the Matoran, though that desire expressed itself in a twisted and frightening manner. The examples go on. 

 

Yes, the goal of many of BIONICLE's villains was power/world domination, but that doesn't explain their motive for wanting that. Velika, to use a recent example, wants to take over Spherus Magna. The reason he does, though, is not a lust for power but because of a genuine belief that such an action was necessary to preserve peace and avoid the kind of disaster that led to the Shattering in the first place. He's killing people left and right, yes, but because he believes that eliminating wild cards is a must in order to avoid any threats to the peace that he intends to establish. 

 

The Barraki wanted to overthrow Mata Nui because of the belief that they were inherently superior and so were entitled to such power. Their motivations become more interesting after they are mutated, where they are driven by an intense hatred of the Brotherhood and Mata Nui for ruining them and reducing them to pathetic sea creatures; basically, they desired the Ignika to restore themselves to normal so that they could exact vengeance and take back the power they felt they were entitled to. The Piraka were basically evil because they were jerks, but it's worth keeping in mind that their species wasn't originally so brutal and violent; they were the victims of experimentation and mutation, outside factors beyond their control. Roodaka did pretty much everything that she did in 2005 in order to free Teridax and gain favor with him (since she was a bit obsessed with him). Karzahni was only really a villain because he was totally and truly insane, a failed creator who was ashamed of his work and who adopted the wrong methods in his attempt to do his job of 'fixing' the Matoran. Sahmad, because of the of the cruelty with which his diseased tribe was treated by others and left to die out, was driven by an intense hatred of all of them, as well as by a desire to get to the bottom of who or what had destroyed his people so that he could find closure. The Bohrok weren't even villains, just victims of being summoned at the wrong time to execute the job they were always intended to do. And so on. 

 

There's a lot more variety here than it might first appear.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

I have to agree in regards to the circumstances in which a character is thought the villain. In the example of the Skakdi who are evil because of their culture brings up interesting thoughts in our own history. Does the term "Savage" mean anything to you. There are things we have done in our past that todays society would see as savage, evil, uncivilized but when you look back who is really the savage?

 

White man landed on the Americas and called the natives savages because they lived off the land prayed to a different deity and used spears and bows instead of fire arms. Also they wore animal skins instead of threated cloth... So in response they acted savagely by killing them stealing their land and assorted other deeds. The native acted in kind.

 

Another example is in Rome where prisoners were fed to the Lions for sport. Or the Maya and Aztec who would sacrifice prisoners to their gods. They were not evil for doing this just because they used humans instead of sheep birds or goats of the more "civilized" cultures. The cultural divide can brand someone evil or villain unfairly. Do I think it is wrong to sacrifice a human life to a god? Yes, would I do it? No. But I understand why they did it and don't see them as villains or bad people for doing so.

 

I mean if you invade someone's land and they attack you who is really the villain here?

[Ballom Nom Nom]

Another example is in Rome where prisoners were fed to the Lions for sport. Or the Maya and Aztec who would sacrifice prisoners to their gods. They were not evil for doing this just because they used humans instead of sheep birds or goats of the more "civilized" cultures. The cultural divide can brand someone evil or villain unfairly. Do I think it is wrong to sacrifice a human life to a god? Yes, would I do it? No. But I understand why they did it and don't see them as villains or bad people for doing so.

I don't think considering someone evil for committing human sacrifice is unfair by any measure. It seems an entirely justified view given what a barbaric thing sacrifice is. This example seems to have missed the mark a bit...

 

I mean if you invade someone's land and they attack you who is really the villain here?

This example works much better toward your point, I think.

 

~B~

[Prowl Nightwolf]

My point being it was a natural part of their culture like how others sacrificed animals instead. It wasn't seen as evil or villainous to them or others who did the same thing, however we seemingly more civilized people see it as barbaric, savage, inhumane, etc...

 

I mean I see blatant hunting for the sake of hunting as a sport is barbaric and evil. as opposed to doing so for the need of survival. The British hunted for sport, the so called "savages" hunted for survival.

[ToaKapura1234]

I don't think morality differs from culture to culture, I think its a universal standard. Different cultures may have different opinions on morality but I think most of us can agree that, no matter the circumstances or culture, killing innocent people is wrong. However, while the classifications are useful for fiction, I don't buy into the whole idea of good people and bad people. It seems to me this idea exists so that "good people" (which everyone will see themselves as) can pat themselves on the back and excuse their bad actions in this light. Everyone does bad things and good things. I suppose given this mixture, you could say everyone is a bad person, but I think it just shows that no one is beyond redemption. Though it may be very unlikely that some would decide to do so, no matter the circumstances (Teridax, Palpatine), everyone can make the choice to begin to strive to do good instead of being self serving and justifying it as good to ease their conscience.

 

tldr; no one is beyond redemption, but that doesn't mean everyone is redeemed.

 

Also I'd like to point out that Luke is one of the very few people to have forgiven Vader, it was not widespread.

Edited May 23, 2015 by ToaKapura1234

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

I can see what Greg means. I don't think he literally means he doesn't agree with redemption from a writing/character stand-point, because his characters clearly go through that development. What I think he means is that in the case of BIONICLE, which is very much a clear-cut good vs evil story, redeeming a truly despicable character would be a betrayal to that conflict. 

 

-NotS

[Alyska]

Nightwolf- I get where you're coming from- it is very easy to get an "ordinary" person- with no particular inclination towards evil- to do abominable things to other humans, be it by having it ingrained in their culture, by exerting authority, by removing their sense of personal agency, by teaching them that the other lives don't matter or that some people are less than human, etc. and I agree with you that our ideas about right and wrong are largely social constructs, but I think if we evaluate actions on the basis of "how much does this help/hurt other people?", we can get a bit closer to an "objective" sense of good and evil. 

 

It's not a perfect model, of course, since you can reasonably argue that even the most mundane actions are causing harm to others, but it's a start. Another problem is of course, ignorance, which historically has been arguably responsible for just as much death and suffering as evil itself. Not so much a problem in the Bionicle stories, since Greg tends to like intelligent and well-informed villains who know exactly what they are doing, but worth considering the different factors that can make someone behave as they do.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Well exactly... I think...

 

So who is really in need of redemption as asked by the opening poster? First we have to establish was is defined as being a villain. Basically somebody who opposes our way and does something to harm that. Back then the art of sacrificing wasn't villainous however in today's society it would most definitely be. What with the "Do not commit murder" Commandment passed down from Moses to the death penalty we can used today as it is a capital crime. But someone who accidently kills are they villains? What about somebody who never kills at all but steals and takes from others?

 

Are the cigarette companies villains? What about Mr South America and his illegal drug runs? Why is he the bad guy but Mr Marlboro isn't? Once you figure out who the villain really is you have to ask if they can be really redeemed. Is there actual redemption? I mean some don't even think they are doing wrong so see no reason for so called redemption. Others do and just don't care. These type of villains again I believe is what Greg was referring. Perhaps if you were redeemable then you were never really a villain in the true sense to begin with...

[Akavakaku]

So Brutaka, Krahka, and Vastus either weren't redeemed, or never were villains to begin with? I find both of those claims hard to believe. Well, maybe Brutaka got halted on his path to redemption by the antidermis takeover, but still. As a matter of fact, you could say Federation of Fear is all about a bunch of villains taking their first awkward steps towards redemption.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Maybe but I could not say since I don't know the story behind them. Villains are villains for a reason and redemption is not in their cards. It would be like somebody following a certain creed and then just abandoning it and everything they stand for. It would be like me saying I am American born and raised and then all of a sudden because of something somebody said I change my view and say I am actually Japanese... I believe the term is turncoat. For good or bad.

 

Greg is basically saying it is not for somebody to go against their nature. A villain is such for whatever reason because at its core it is in their nature. The Skakdi are aggressive by nature so when then meet with a passive civilization they are seen as villains. Redemption for a Villain is a falsehood derived from their personal needs and true redemption does not exist because even if they try the evil or villainous thoughts will remain unless some form of Bionicle lobotomy takes place. A Skakdi no matter how hard they will try and how good they may seem can and will revert back to a more aggressive(Villain) response eventually.

 

Think of it like Snakes as pets. Yes that 40 foot Python may seem gentle and you may never have a problem with it. However just as likely the other guy with a 45 foot Python ends up becoming an appetizer. It is in the snake's nature to make a meal of animals smaller and even some larger than it. This is true of any Predator species. That Lion or Tiger may choke down the veggie salad you are force feeding it but big kitty there wants meat and sooner or later it is going to get it. Even if that meat is you...

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

We might be beginning to tread murky waters, and I hope that the following is neutral enough to be palatable for the general public.

 

Well exactly... I think...

So who is really in need of redemption as asked by the opening poster? First we have to establish was is defined as being a villain. Basically somebody who opposes our way and does something to harm that. Back then the art of sacrificing wasn't villainous however in today's society it would most definitely be. What with the "Do not commit murder" Commandment passed down from Moses to the death penalty we can used today as it is a capital crime. But someone who accidently kills are they villains? What about somebody who never kills at all but steals and takes from others?

it is only deemed as being wrong in the modern Western Civilization because for over a thousand years the West and cultures based on/influenced by it have believed in the practice of Chalcedonian Christianity, which teaches that there was a single ultimate sacrifice and no further sacrifices were needed to repay transgressions against their deity (all that is necessary is the acceptance of this gift), but many people tend to forget that. Cultures and cvilizations that did not follow Chalcedonian Christianity (and/or other variations of it) or lacked it's influence either still practiced organism-based sacrificing, simply overlooked that, or had their own answer all-together.

 

Well you first have to know the definition of the word murder. Too kill means to bring upon the death/premature perishing of a living organism. To murder is to unjustly kill. Where does this predetermined fact of morality originate from (what makes a death unjust or not to warrant being titled a murder)? Most likely some sort of thorough metaphysical belief or ideology, something to keep theologists and philosophers debating for years to come.  And I remember the Good Book saying that stealing is also wrong.

 

I recognize the difference between doing something bad/evil, and being a villain (Josef Stalin comes to mind), I just wanted to possibly clear some things up.

 

 

tldr; no one is beyond redemption, but that doesn't mean everyone is redeemed.

Preach it. This was what I was trying to say earlier. Everyone can find redemption, but not everyone will allow themselves to be redeemed. And it is those people that have the potential to be villains by Farshety's definition.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Iaredios Paerkenon

[believe victims]

Villains are villains for a reason

 

But those reasons need not necessarily be unshakable. The reasons for being villainous may be based on a false assumption, or a warped perspective. Is it entirely implausible that a villain might realize one day that the reasons they were a villain no longer seem particularly compelling?

 

Think of it like Snakes as pets. Yes that 40 foot Python may seem gentle and you may never have a problem with it. However just as likely the other guy with a 45 foot Python ends up becoming an appetizer.

Please don't spread myths about keeping snakes as pets; your average Ball Python or Corn Snake is a perfectly safe pet.

 

Remember, a house cat is also a predator species. Should I be looking behind my back whenever I'm in the same room as the fat orange lump I call my cat, lest he view me as dinner?

 

(Actually, that might be more likely than the snake scenario.)

[Gipsy Danger]

 

--snip--

 

Enough about me. The point I'm interested in discussing is one raised by the person who asked Greg this ill-fated question: what would it take to redeem some of BIONICLE's villains? The OP cited the Barraki and Makuta Miserix as potential candidates for redemption, but I'm interested in hearing about any and all villains' possibilities. What would it take to redeem Ahkmou? Vezok? And if anyone's really ambitious: what would it take to redeem Makuta Teridax?

 

Both of the above discussion points, and any additional ones related to the subject, are welcome here. I think this is a very interesting discussion to have.

To redeem those characters?  Not much; just a simple extension of kindness can change even the worst of villains.

 

I think it would be cool if they did have at least one villain turn good. 

 

That should be a good twist.

[Regitnui]

 

 

 

 

--snip--

 

Enough about me. The point I'm interested in discussing is one raised by the person who asked Greg this ill-fated question: what would it take to redeem some of BIONICLE's villains? The OP cited the Barraki and Makuta Miserix as potential candidates for redemption, but I'm interested in hearing about any and all villains' possibilities. What would it take to redeem Ahkmou? Vezok? And if anyone's really ambitious: what would it take to redeem Makuta Teridax?

 

Both of the above discussion points, and any additional ones related to the subject, are welcome here. I think this is a very interesting discussion to have.

To redeem those characters? Not much; just a simple extension of kindness can change even the worst of villains.

 

I think it would be cool if they did have at least one villain turn good.

That should be a good twist.

If it's handled correctly and sensibly, then yes. Makuta in G2 is a good candidate, redeeming himself after realizing what he'd wrought by bringing the MoUP into the world, and teaming up with the heroes to destroy it. Though, only after he gets Ekimu to say it was a great, well-crafted mask.

[Makaru]

A lot of the arguments I am seeing in this topic so far have been about Makuta, which is fair. Makuta did a lot of extremely heinous things, was absolutely full of himself and did not once stray from character once in his entire run.
 
But here's the thing. Makuta doesn't exist [i know shocking]. He is a work of fiction. His character was written to do the things it did. He isn't irredeemable because he does terrible things, he does terrible things because he is irredeemable.
 
It's a very subtle difference but it's a HUGE change. Instead of someone being driven to do unforgivable acts to [what that character perceives as] the Right Thing to do, we get Makuta. Makuta, a Bad Guy who does Bad Things because that's what Bad Guys do.

 

It's shallow and uninteresting in contrast to the villain who does things because it's the right thing to do [for them].

 

And here's the cool thing: You can have a redeemable character AND HAVE THEM NEVER TURN GOOD. The capacity to change can be there, but if that character chooses not to take that route then that character now has exactly one interesting dynamic over Makuta.

 

"How do you get this across in a character though?" Well I'm glad you asked, imaginary person who I am using to further my dialog in the directions I need it to. You do this through the character's actions and dialog. Give them moments of hesitation. Have them wonder, even if briefly, if their motives are correct. Make them justify their own actions.

 

 

 

Or make a guy who never dies, has all his schemes go according to plan even when they fail and especially have him cackle about how awesome he is every chance you get. That's cool too.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

 

Villains are villains for a reason

 

But those reasons need not necessarily be unshakable. The reasons for being villainous may be based on a false assumption, or a warped perspective. Is it entirely implausible that a villain might realize one day that the reasons they were a villain no longer seem particularly compelling?

 

Think of it like Snakes as pets. Yes that 40 foot Python may seem gentle and you may never have a problem with it. However just as likely the other guy with a 45 foot Python ends up becoming an appetizer.

Please don't spread myths about keeping snakes as pets; your average Ball Python or Corn Snake is a perfectly safe pet.

 

Remember, a house cat is also a predator species. Should I be looking behind my back whenever I'm in the same room as the fat orange lump I call my cat, lest he view me as dinner?

 

(Actually, that might be more likely than the snake scenario.)

 

 

Not a rumor. The larger the snake gets the more likely the owner could become the meal. Well the Snake would have to be able to get past the shoulders. Snakes have tried to make meals of humans thus usually resulting in the child and even Adult being crushed to death. Though now that you mention your cat it too even more so if it was able to grow to a large enough size to see you as a meal source. You are also right even more so due to house cats in particular Hunting just for fun and not actually for food. Snakes usually only hunt when they are hungry. There are people out there who have large cats(Lions, Tigers, cougars) as pets and reports have shown them to attack their handlers/owners. Sleep with one eye open, your cat may look fat and lazy but it is really a villain biding its time...

 

A lot of the arguments I am seeing in this topic so far have been about Makuta, which is fair. Makuta did a lot of extremely heinous things, was absolutely full of himself and did not once stray from character once in his entire run.

 

But here's the thing. Makuta doesn't exist [i know shocking]. He is a work of fiction. His character was written to do the things it did. He isn't irredeemable because he does terrible things, he does terrible things because he is irredeemable.

Where was this logic 63 posts ago? "Villains aren't irredeemable because they do terrible things, they do terrible things because they are irredeemable." A good logic that fit well with a point I think I tried to make in a prior post. By that I mean something along the lines of what Greg was trying to possibly say with his statement.

 

I really do hate when people are able to explain something so much better than I and make it seem so easy. Makes us feel inadequate. Like no matter how good you are some how somebody can always do something better. I think I am going to go be a villain now... Somebody come try to redeem me...

[Makaru]

Let me drop some more logic on you:

 

Not a rumor. The larger the snake gets the more likely the owner could become the meal. Well the Snake would have to be able to get past the shoulders. Snakes have tried to make meals of humans thus usually resulting in the child and even Adult being crushed to death. Though now that you mention your cat it too even more so if it was able to grow to a large enough size to see you as a meal source. You are also right even more so due to house cats in particular Hunting just for fun and not actually for food. Snakes usually only hunt when they are hungry. There are people out there who have large cats(Lions, Tigers, cougars) as pets and reports have shown them to attack their handlers/owners. Sleep with one eye open, your cat may look fat and lazy but it is really a villain biding its time...

 

Well fed domesticated Pythons do not eat their owners. You're more likely to be killed by a horse or a dog.

 

Stop forwarding grandma's emails please.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Makaru

[emily]

Since we're talking the Makuta and his potential as a villain, I'll just drop this here.

[Regitnui]

Since we're talking the Makuta and his potential as a villain, I'll just drop this here.

The G2 Makuta might be a riff on this theory; he's not inherently evil, but he's been made crazy by jealousy and the corrupting effect of the MoUP. Perhaps we'll see, towards the end of 2017 (the current 'last year' of G2), Makuta coming to, fighting the MoUP for control of himself and his actions, becoming more of an Alas, Poor Villain, than the Xanatos Speed Chessmaster Teridax was.

[ToaKapura1234]

What is up with all the TvTropes references around here lately? Not a problem, I've just seen way more here in the past couple weeks than before.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Let me drop some more logic on you:

 

Not a rumor. The larger the snake gets the more likely the owner could become the meal. Well the Snake would have to be able to get past the shoulders. Snakes have tried to make meals of humans thus usually resulting in the child and even Adult being crushed to death. Though now that you mention your cat it too even more so if it was able to grow to a large enough size to see you as a meal source. You are also right even more so due to house cats in particular Hunting just for fun and not actually for food. Snakes usually only hunt when they are hungry. There are people out there who have large cats(Lions, Tigers, cougars) as pets and reports have shown them to attack their handlers/owners. Sleep with one eye open, your cat may look fat and lazy but it is really a villain biding its time...

 

Well fed domesticated Pythons do not eat their owners. You're more likely to be killed by a horse or a dog.

 

Stop forwarding grandma's emails please.

 

 

Grandma's Emails, really? So do try and disprove my argument you found a link to a ridiculous topic about Pythons measuring their prey before trying to eat it? Now I think you are making fun of me . Anyway as an avid watcher of National Geographic and related media I have seen reports about such action. I wont directly link anything here due to rules about graphic content or alike that may get broken. However if you search "Python kills Owner" , "Python kills toddler" , or even "Python kills handler" under News and you can see several reports about such a thing. Anyway...

 

I think I am going to go be a villain now... Somebody come try to redeem me...

 

I am a villain now ^{at least in this topic} So don't really care one way or the other. What evil thing should I try to do? Yeah it has been a while since I have let my darker side loose so not very good at it. I need practice.

[Regitnui]

What is up with all the TvTropes references around here lately? Not a problem, I've just seen way more here in the past couple weeks than before.

Trooper over here. Tvtropes Will Ruin Your Life. And tropes aren't a bad way to dissect a story and have a common language for doing so.

[believe victims]

Grandma's Emails, really? So do try and disprove my argument you found a link to a ridiculous topic about Pythons measuring their prey before trying to eat it? Now I think you are making fun of me . Anyway as an avid watcher of National Geographic and related media I have seen reports about such action. I wont directly link anything here due to rules about graphic content or alike that may get broken. However if you search "Python kills Owner" , "Python kills toddler" , or even "Python kills handler" under News and you can see several reports about such a thing.

 

 

 

Any pet can be dangerous if not properly cared for. If you starve a snake, it might kill and eat you, but so might a dog or cat. I'm sorry for continuing this tangent from the point of this topic (which I also still disagree with) but, as an aspiring snake owner, seeing people continue to spread the myth that snakes are inherently a more dangerous pet than a dog or cat is irritating.

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Hehe and my Evil spreads.

 

Never said that other animals could not be more dangerous. It is a matter of probability. More people have dogs then snakes as dogs are common pets. So seeing a news report about a Dog attacking and possibly killing someone is very high. However the 21,400 news reports though many are going to be the same story on another media still solidifies my point. Though also to be fair I was talking about making a possible meal of the owner. Many of them reports could just as easily be venom related deaths. Not dinner plans. Also I doubt if the level of Dog related deaths had to do with meal time.

 

Keeping with the spirit of the Topic Does that mean Dogs are villains? Just thought I'd ask.

[believe victims]

Many of them reports could just as easily be venom related deaths

 

From a python? The dogs are more likely to be responsible for venom-related deaths.

 

People don't usually keep venomous snakes.

 

Also, not all the results were even related to killing; in fact, far more of the dog articles had to do with animal-related deaths than the snakes, most of which were about snakes dying from neglect!

 

Pet snakes are conditioned to live around people, selectively bred to be less dangerous, and honestly usually too small. Having a pet ball python is not like walking out into the wild, grabbing a rattlesnake, and shoving it in a bin; these are animals born and raised to be around humans, just like any other pet. The worst most ball python owners have to worry about is a small bite from an anxious pet (which, considering they're not venomous at all, is just fine.)

 

Fighting this stigma about evil snakes being terrible pets is important, because people are actively campaigning against pet snakes simply because they cannot see past it.

 

re: dogs being villains: depends on the dog

[Prowl Nightwolf]

No not from a python silly. Everyone knows pythons don't have venom though some have sharp teeth. As for the snakes, you have to remember that while yes many snakes are bred for captivity several are not as people get them off the black market. Also breeding the wild out of them completely is near impossible. Snakes are like cats in the regard that they don't really see themselves as being owned. Responsible snake owners reduce the risk of serpent related accidents. However it is the types who think a snake is a cool pet and want one just for that but have no actual idea how to take care of one. It is basically handling a loaded gun. The responsible owner vs the guy flinging it around like a new toy. This is true of many if not all Predator pets including dogs. Oddly I don't think there have been too many reported deaths from house cats attacking their owners though.
 

re: dogs being villains: depends on the dog

Funny you should mention Carface as he was a villain who seems redeemed yet somehow keeps going bad. So was he ever really redeemed? Or was he as Greg may put it, "Faking it for his own self preservation"?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Prowl Nightwolf

[Black Six]

Hey guys, let's calm down and stay on topic. This topic isn't about snakes and dogs.

[Thormen]

I'm gonna play "Greg's advocate" here if you will and interpret his quote in a less objectionable way, related to what Nidhiki of the Shadows and Makura said. Yes, it's true that a character who is on the wrong side of the good/evil divide isn't automatically beyond redemption. I don't think Greg was referring to that however, since he's written about multiple bad guys turned good in the past. I think he's talking about a villain in the sense of the ultimate bad guy who fulfills the evil function within the story. This is what TV-Tropes calls the "Big Bad" and examples are Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars and Sauron in the Lord of the Rings. These characters are considered incredibly evil, more than your regular thug, but more importantly: their evil drives the story.

 

Take the Makuta for example: is he truly irredeemable as a person? I don't think so, it would take a lot to redeem him but I think there is a slight possibility. One moment in the story where it could've realistically happened is when Mata Nui died and everyone in the Matoran Universe felt it: that was a terrible sensation that he had never felt before, something unprecedented like that could've triggered remorse in him. Faced with the consequences of his actions, he might change his mind. It wouldn't have been unrealistic.

 

What it would have done however is ruin the story, because the plot couldn't work without the Makuta being evil. If there's a story with a villain and a master plan he is enacting, no writer in the world would have his villain just abandon the plan before the audience knows about it. That is guaranteed to ruin your story.

 

Greg's concern may have been that: he didn't want to redeem any Barraki because he wrote them as the villains that drove the plot of his stories and having them turn good at a later time would ruin those stories in retrospect.

 

What it would take to redeem the Makuta besides the alternate reality I suggest above? Well he has always had high ambitions and goals and ignored any evil he wrought in favor of those goals. His goal was to rule the Matoran Universe and he mercilessly worked his way to achieve it, then he triumphed and played around cruelly with his newfound power until he got bored and set a new goal for himself: conquering what was beyond the Matoran Universe. If he had killed Mata Nui, most likely he would've continued conquering and demonstrating his power over the main universe until he got bored with that as well. I think he needs to reach a point where he is at the pinnacle of possible power, where there are no more options for him left to increase his power, where he will have to re-examine his ways. If he rules all that one can possibly rule and is bored of killing people, he will have to make a change and it is at that point that I can imagine him re-evaluating his actions and becoming regretful.

[The 1st Shadow]

One moment in the story where it could've realistically happened is when Mata Nui died and everyone in the Matoran Universe felt it: that was a terrible sensation that he had never felt before, something unprecedented like that could've triggered remorse in him. Faced with the consequences of his actions, he might change his mind. It wouldn't have been unrealistic.

 

What it would have done however is ruin the story, because the plot couldn't work without the Makuta being evil.

 

I don't see how that possibly could have happened. Why would he feel remorse for causing the death of Mata Nui? His Plan included having the GSR fully dead, so that MN's spirit would be out of the way. A Makuta's antidermis cannot inhabit a body that already contains a spirit, so he had to get MN out of there--killing him was the easiest way to go. He had already prepared for that moment by guiding Matoro to know how the Ignika worked in the grand scheme of things, so he knew good and well that the robot would only be dead for a short time--long enough for him to slip back to Metru Nui and get into the Core Processor.

 

My point is, Teridax had EVERYTHING planned out. The only thing that could have made him regret his actions was one of his pawns failing to perform their required task--We already saw this in the Kingdom, when Matoro hesitated too long and didn't revive the GSR. But for our Teridax, the way things went, he saw no need for remorse; only reason to celebrate his victory. Toa save the day, he knew. So, in killing the Great Spirit, he had already won. Why would he cry over his ultimate success?

 

But you're right later on about him getting bored of ruling the cosmos. I've thought the same myself on a number of occasions. There's only so far you can go. But would it be too late for him then? If he already conquered/decimated every living planet, what would there be left for him to turn to?

[Prowl Nightwolf]

Yeah I could See Makuta being redeemed at the very last second after he is completely alone in the universe because he had killed/destroyed everything but himself. "gee I guess I didn't think this plan completely through. Who am I going to oppress when nobody to oppress? Guess I could oppress myself but that is an illogical puzzle as NOBODY OPPRESSES THE MAKUTA!!! Even the Makuta!"

Edited May 31, 2015 by Prowl Nightwolf