How bad a thing can a good person do?

[radraccoon]

I was thinking of having my characters engage in a little bit of detour where one of the heroines, who has been kind and loving until that point, meets a man from her past. He has a family and seems like a nice person but beforehand he'd done some nasty things (ran a cult, brainwashed children into being soldiers) which has haunted her. So she murders him. She doesn't care whether he's a different person now (in fact, I'd present him as reformed but she simply doesn't believe it). Nor does she have any concern for what this may do to his family. She just feels the bastard evaded justice and takes it upon herself to correct matters.

Would that be going too far? Could a character still be good after that? Or could readers accept she's good, but even a good person has their limits?

 

[Vnator]

I think it adds nuance to the character. That she has her own limits to how much she's willing to follow "order" and perform vigilante justice if she's pushed far enough.

I can see you having the character commit the murder seemingly out of nowhere and everyone, including her allies, be completely shocked at the seemingly out of character behavior. Then have her reveal how terrible of a man that person was and build up how she might have been justified, but still leave it out in the open whether it truly was the "right" thing to do.

But that's just an example of how I'd do it. You do it however you feel is best :)

 

[Paul__Michaels]

I was thinking of having my characters engage in a little bit of detour where one of the heroines, who has been kind and loving until that point, meets a man from her past. He has a family and seems like a nice person but beforehand he'd done some nasty things (ran a cult, brainwashed children into being soldiers) which has haunted her. So she murders him. She doesn't care whether he's a different person now (in fact, I'd present him as reformed but she simply doesn't believe it). Nor does she have any concern for what this may do to his family. She just feels the bastard evaded justice and takes it upon herself to correct matters.

Would that be going too far? Could a character still be good after that? Or could readers accept she's good, but even a good person has their limits?

Depends how you write it of course. If you don't put in the proper amount of time in develop the situation then you readers might not like it.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Yes that would be arrogant vigilantism. For a character to murder someone in cold blood is evil. My main character for example is a bad person but doesn't kill people, at least not yet.

It is overly prideful to think you are the arbiter of morality who chooses who lives and who dies. Furthermore if he's changed, a truly good person would be inclined to forgive at least a little bit. Even if she doesn't believe him, she would at least be hesitant to do anything rash based on a small possibility.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

This was not a 'good' thing character did, in fact it was very 'bad', short-sighted, closed hearted, and selfish.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

To be fair, I think he knows the action is bad, but wants to know how bad an action has to be to make a character evil. In regards to this one, yeah the character's evil now.

 

[Rhaps]

I don't believe in redemption, but killing is a bit too far in my opinion. Here, I have a quote from one of my character, "I don't condone killing, but crippling beyond repair is totally okay."

Even if he had reformed, Justice will come and bite his ass one day. Killing him off seems like a total waste but I could see why she would do that.

I have something call "trauma points", basically just a count of how much the character suffers and when the climax come, based on how much trauma point was accumulated I could choose which action the character would take.
This is just my way after all.

As for if the heroine could still be consider good? I don't know, for me she falls in the grey area once she kill someone. If she broke her limit once who can she she can't another time?

Kara no Kyokai has a great quote, "You can only kill one person in your entire life.", that refers to death as you kill yourself in the final moment.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

I find it interesting that so many so far are so quick to judge her as evil with so little context as to the direction you will be taking the death. Honestly, with the amount of information available, I can't really judge whether I would find her as going too far or not. That anyone answering can form an opinion with so little is shocking, because that would imply their opinion is so black-and-white that an executioner, police, etc. are evil for killing.
@ControversialOpinion @Prince_Azmiran_Myrian I think your opinions are incredibly thoughtless.

 

[HelloHound]

Good, righteous and kind people are all capable of terrible, horrible acts that show the ugliest parts of humanity; it's just how it can be in moments of weakness and stress

 

[Tyranomaster]

It paints a certain tone. Vigilantism in the modern world is frowned upon, but in medieval times it was common. A good person would admit to what they did, and say why, and then accept the punishment others put upon them afterwards. They should never be immediately forgiven, or have those close to them just accept what they did as fine. Attonement needs to occur.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

I find it interesting that so many so far are so quick to judge her as evil with so little context as to the direction you will be taking the death. Honestly, with the amount of information available, I can't really judge whether I would find her as going too far or not. That anyone answering can form an opinion with so little is shocking, because that would imply their opinion is so black-and-white that an executioner, police, etc. are evil for killing.
@ControversialOpinion @Prince_Azmiran_Myrian I think your opinions are incredibly thoughtless.

Not at all. The police and executioner are authorized by their society. When they kill they are merely an instrument of the state which is hopefully in line with the morality of the people within the state.

Her scenario is just vigilantism, and possibly revenge seeking. She places herself as the moral authority on the matter not as an instrument of a higher power or representative of her society, but just as herself. Because of this she reaps all the blame for the amoral action.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Not at all. The police and executioner are authorized by their society. When they kill they are merely an instrument of the state which is hopefully in line with the morality of the people within the state.

Her scenario is just vigilantism, and possibly revenge seeking. She places herself as the moral authority on the matter not as an instrument of a higher power or representative of her society, but just as herself. Because of this she reaps all the blame for the amoral action.

Yes. It is incredibly thoughtless. Even ignoring my personal beliefs on vigilantism and on revenge seeking.
One, they haven't even mentioned whether she is connected or not to a higher power, representative of her society, or part of an organization meant to. Two, we don't even understand the full extent and complexity of his crimes. We were given the absolute barebones on the extent of his crimes. And three, he could be on the run, having integrated in society, and kill on sight.
We just don't know, and from the lightest description, you are already calling her evil. Right now, you are just jumping the gun.

 

[NotaNuffian]

So the question becomes "does killing a confirmed (by the heroine and her only?) criminal who may or may not be punished by the legal system bad?"

I like it. I like how the heroine's immediate action (?) is murder instead of, I don't know, talk to others, seek the legal system or get someone else to pull the trigger. Murder is always on the table and it is fair game, but it might need to be vetted through some legal red tapes because we live in a society and no one likes to get shived. At least make the shanking legalise by a witch trial first.

I am not saying the heroine's vigilantism is bad, I am saying to at least oust the man first, then stab him to death. That way, people around her might not be too shocked.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Yes. It is incredibly thoughtless. Even ignoring my personal beliefs on vigilantism and on revenge seeking.
One, they haven't even mentioned whether she is connected or not to a higher power, representative of her society, or part of an organization meant to. Two, we don't even understand the full extent and complexity of his crimes. We were given the absolute barebones on the extent of his crimes. And three, he could be on the run, having integrated in society, and kill on sight.
We just don't know, and from the lightest description, you are already calling her evil. Right now, you are just jumping the gun.

So how am I thoughtless? If the defence is "she could be doing exactly what you say is moral for all you know" then there, my critique doesn't apply to her. So it doesn't matter.

I gave an opinion on the information given, if it was presented as "is it bad to kill a criminal whose kill on sight?" then id have a different answer.

Also, you could've called my opinion controversial. It's right there.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Yes. It is incredibly thoughtless. Even ignoring my personal beliefs on vigilantism and on revenge seeking.
One, they haven't even mentioned whether she is connected or not to a higher power, representative of her society, or part of an organization meant to. Two, we don't even understand the full extent and complexity of his crimes. We were given the absolute barebones on the extent of his crimes. And three, he could be on the run, having integrated in society, and kill on sight.
We just don't know, and from the lightest description, you are already calling her evil. Right now, you are just jumping the gun.

She doesn't care whether he's a different person now (in fact, I'd present him as reformed but she simply doesn't believe it). Nor does she have any concern for what this may do to his family.

This is enough to make a judgement of her actions right here. It is unloving. She's blinded by rage.

She just feels the bastard evaded justice and takes it upon herself to correct matters.

I don't care how bad a thing he'd done in the past, killing somebody when they have repented and are no longer doing it is bad. This is one of the reasons vigilantism is wrong.
She's a murderer now. That's evil.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

So how am I thoughtless? If the defence is "she could be doing exactly what you say is moral for all you know" then there, my critique doesn't apply to her. So it doesn't matter.

I gave an opinion on the information given, if it was presented as "is it bad to kill a criminal whose kill on sight?" then id have a different answer.

Also, you could've called my opinion controversial. It's right there.

It's thoughtless because you made your opinion absolute with no addendums nor accounting for any variables. It is quite obvious that that is why I was stating your opinion was thoughtless. It can be inferred from my selection of reasons I pointed, so I am pretty sure your question was pointless.
And yeah, your opinion is controversial because of its utter absoluteness. And I will of course call its lack of thought.

This is enough to make a judgement of her actions right here. It is unloving. She's blinded by rage.

I don't care how bad a thing he'd done in the past, killing somebody when they have repented and are no longer doing it is bad. This is one of the reasons vigilantism is bad.
She's a murderer now. That's evil.

This is so black and white, I can almost feel the ink dribbling down my eyes and the white-out running down my mouth. Don't really have anything to say to that though. Everything is clear-cut to you, so unless I want to engage in a debate differing from the one on "are they thoughtless or not", I'll hold off debating your opinions.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

This is enough to make a judgement of her actions right here. It is unloving. She's blinded by rage.

I don't care how bad a thing he'd done in the past, killing somebody when they have repented and are no longer doing it is bad. This is one of the reasons vigilantism is bad.
She's a murderer now. That's evil.

Oh good eye. That second one makes it clear she's acting on her own.

 

[Cipiteca396]

From a literary perspective, it doesn't matter if it's good or evil. The real issue is whether your readers will forgive you for it.

As written, the answer will usually be no.

A formerly heroic character suddenly turns into a murderer out of nowhere, and then gives a halfhearted excuse about why. That's going to strain your reader's suspension of disbelief to an unrecoverable degree.

The way to fix this, is to have a flashback, or to show the villainous character committing evil acts in the present to prove they haven't reformed. That's how you build sympathy for your murderer and allow the readers to accept her actions.

Without that, your previously 'good' character is suddenly acting out of character, and most readers will refuse to accept that this random, family man stranger deserved to die without any justification. They won't see it as a morally questionable, thought provoking event. It'll just be bad writing.

That said, if you put the effort in to flesh out the scenario, you can turn it back into good writing. My only advice is to avoid preaching- if you make a direct comment on whether her actions are good or bad, then you'll alienate the readers who don't agree. You need to make it clear that some characters can forgive her, and others can't- because that's how your readers will feel.

 

[RepresentingCaution]

Humans are complex. Nobody is completely good or completely bad. I would argue that we are all doing our best based on the information we have. Given that she doesn't believe him . . .

 

[APieceOfRock]

Yes that would be arrogant vigilantism. For a character to murder someone in cold blood is evil. My main character for example is a bad person but doesn't kill people, at least not yet.

It is overly prideful to think you are the arbiter of morality who chooses who lives and who dies. Furthermore if he's changed, a truly good person would be inclined to forgive at least a little bit. Even if she doesn't believe him, she would at least be hesitant to do anything rash based on a small possibility.

I don't think it's vigilantism so much as her just being traumatized. She got something against him, she kills him. Unless her whole thing is that she's an envoy of justice or something.
(this part is not related to the post I quoted. Just some statement from me.)
And there is no good or evil.
Oh, you think sacrificing babies is evil? Some civilizations thousands of years ago think that it's the norm.
Everything is subjective. To blatantly say that something (even murder) is evil is arrogant and prideful. We get it, your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.
Oh the other hand, said civilizations are not around today anymore. Seems like our set of morals has been proven to be better than the other