Writing How does a moral antagonist (3D) end up as a dark mirror of the protagonist?

[Eldoria]

Worth Ending for the Moral Antagonist as the Dark Mirror of the Protagonist​

One-dimensional antagonists are shallow characters, usually evil for evil's sake. For some authors, a 1D antagonist can be well-written, especially when the antagonist falls or loses, the blow feels satisfying. Moreover, readers tend to like evil villains who are defeated by the protagonist decisively (who doesn't like seeing an evil villain punished? Whether in fiction or real life, it's the same).

But what about a 3D antagonist, a character who opposes the protagonist who has a complex and human personality? Perhaps they are evil but have legitimate motives. Or they are heroes in their own version or for the group they defend.

Thanos could be considered a balancer of the cosmos by wiping out half the universe's population. Magneto could be considered a hero to oppressed mutants. And Pain (Nagato Uzumaki) is a dark mirror for Naruto, who desires peace through collective pain as opposed to peace through empathy (which Naruto strives for).

They are concrete representations of what would happen if the protagonist fell down the path of darkness? We understand their reasons for extreme actions, although that doesn't necessarily justify them.

And maybe... if we were in their shoes, we might have done the same. That's why I call them dark mirrors for the protagonist.

As such, their endings are less relevant, with crushing defeats or ignominious deaths like those of evil villains. I even still sympathize with Nagato's death after over a decade.

So, what do you think is a worth ending for a moral antagonist who acts as a dark mirror for the protagonist?

 

[Sylver]

I never really agreed with Thanos cuz my immediate response to his monologue was why not snap your fingers and create infinite resources rather than a temporary set back of wiping half of all life without warning everyone to be cautious of resourced for next time?

A worth ending for a Moral Antagonist is up to what ls fitting to the story they are presented in.

Self-Sacrifice is a classic it the story builds up their redemption.
- Nagato/Pain in Naruto Shippuden was in short Ninja Anakin Skywalker x) and his redemption was a bit of a sweeping under the rug action. I'm all for him passing away but I really dislike the decision for him to revive everyone he killed in the Hidden Leaf Village. It removes any lasting consequences from his presence which is why I much prefer his fight with Jiraiya Sensei.
- Darth Vader is a better example. He dies saving Luke from the Emperor and unlike Nagato, he and the people he killed stay dead. Only Luke is present for his funeral while everyone else celebrated his passing and the fall of the Empire.

Another route is redemption by choosing to help the protagonist is their journey.
- Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Its more than choosing to help Aang, it serves as his journey toward individuality and learning to love the people around him rather than forcing a bond with the people that use him for selfish goals. And then when the fire nation falls, he makes it his goal to rebuild after his father's takeover. He's one of the best examples of a redeemed Antagonist.
- Lord Business from the Lego Movie. A direct contrast to Emmett, no one told him he was special so he took direct control to force the world into his vision. He doesn't want free control, he wants submission. He doesn't want to build pieces back and forth, he wants to glue them together in one solid shape. But Emmetts speech convinces him to drop his goal and bring an end to Taco Tuesday (this sounds freaking hilarious out of context for those who haven't watched the movie ?)

It's usually a self sacrifice or forgiveness. We have other examples but those are the most popular that I've seen.

 

[Succubiome]

Enemies to lovers with the protagonist!

(Really, it depends on what kind of story you're writing.)

 

[GlassRose]

Depends on how 'moral' the moral antagonist really is. I'd say the best ending is for them to be confronted in some way by the wicked means they've used to accomplish their goals, and more specifically be shown another way. For some, this could lead to them changing their methods, and no longer being antagonists/villains. For others though, I imagine it would cause a breakdown, those that have been using their 'righteous cause' as an excuse when they're really just egotistical maniacs.

Take Thanos. I absolutely hate him, and the attempts to justify him, because they just fall so flat. He's and egotistical narcissistic megalomaniac. He's no balancer of the universe. His plan to wipe out half the population? Is utterly stupid. It solves nothing, at best it's a temporary measure, and it causes untold pain, not to mention disorder as all the affected worlds are destabilized by the loss of half the population, undoubtedly leading to anarchy and collapse of economies and supply lines, until everything stabilizes and the population grows out of control again. Not that population is even the biggest issue! Let's use Earth as an example. The Earth is capable of supporting the entire population of humanity, produce enough food for everyone, and yet, there's still starvation. This isn't because of a lack or resources, but because of selfish hoarding of resources and lack of efficient distribution. Expand out to the universe, there is PLENTY of raw material, uninhabited planets and whatnot, that could be processed into production centers that could support truly massive populations. And Thanos' plan is to wipe out half of the universe? Ludicrous. He commands an empire! He has more than enough manpower and influence to ensure that enough resources are produced, and then distributed fairly, to solve the problem in a far more effective, long-term, and painless manner. And then all he has as to do it establish limits on how many children one can have to keep the population at a stable level that's supportable by production levels. Universally halving the population is an extraordinarily lazy and laughably ineffective option. Seeing Thanos forced to confront the profound failure of his logic would be delightful, as he's forced to accept that all his atrocities and all the blood on his hands is unjustified, he's not the savior he thinks he is, he's just a prideful fool-! Would be so delicious. I hate lazily written villains like this, because his plan is so obviously flawed and there's so obviously better options that he is perfectly capable of, and yet people STILL try to argue he's complex or that he has any kind of vestige of a point at all! Infuriating.

 

[PancakesWitch]

I reversed it where my protagonist is a good and moral guy that fights to protect his family and home against a megalomaniac fairy king who is actually a trickster god that has been manipulating and causing chaos and destruction for eons, but all of what the villain did was to save the universe because fantasy was destroying it and eventually, in the near future, everything woul end, so he was seeking to destroy fantasy itself, the protagonist, who sees fantasy as what gave life to everyone he loves, cannot let him do that so he beats him and stops him from saving the universe from destruction. he gained a couple thousands years of peace, but as a dragon, he will eventually live long enough to see the end of the universe, which was caused by his fault.
at the end you ask yourself what was better? to let those people in that world die so the universe and all life there is in it continues to exist, or to doom the universe to enjoy a few thousand years of happiness and peace? although the moral choice might have been what the protagonist choose, the antagonist was also sufficiently justified and in the perspective of all life in the univeerse, he was a hero fighting to protect them

 

[Naravelt]

My protagonist believes reality is subjective, shaped by his past experiences and feelings, while the main antagonist believes reality is objective, based on truth and logical outcomes.

The ending of the protagonist’s dark mirror depends on the theme and relationships with the current characters. I think their choice should be true to their characters, and not everyone is irredeemable.

In my story, the antagonist knew from the start that the world was flawed. Initially, he believed in the protagonist's view, but over time, he came to see the alternate path as safer. It's like the metaphor of never-ending sailing ships nearly sinking: he decides to abandon it, thinking the ship's design was flawed from the start, while the protagonist keeps trying to repair it.

In the end, as the antagonist's plan fails, he decides to do the most logical thing: repair the hole in the ship so that it doesn’t sink, which ultimately leads to his death in the process. He leaves his knowledge for future generations, mapping out the ship and the path to patch the hole, ensuring that the ship won’t sink again if the tragedy repeats in the future.

 

[Envylope]

I would like to see the authors treat those the same as evil antagonists sometimes. Give them a deep backstory and still have them die a brutal death. I don't see this outcome happen as much.

 

[Eldoria]

- Nagato/Pain in Naruto Shippuden was in short Ninja Anakin Skywalker x) and his redemption was a bit of a sweeping under the rug action. I'm all for him passing away but I really dislike the decision for him to revive everyone he killed in the Hidden Leaf Village. It removes any lasting consequences from his presence which is why I much prefer his fight with Jiraiya Sensei.

I agree with this. The revival of Konoha's population negates Pain's tragedy. However, Naruto was written as an inspirational story and a story of hope for teenagers, especially boys (shounen). I understand why the author chose Pain's ending, even if I'm not satisfied.

 

[Sylver]

I agree with this. The revival of Konoha's population negates Pain's tragedy. However, Naruto was written as an inspirational story and a story of hope for teenagers, especially boys (shounen). I understand why the author chose Pain's ending, even if I'm not satisfied.

Yea I get why the author did it. I just don't agree with it x)

Good guys rarely pass away on Naruto Shippuden x) but that's lots of anime I suppose.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I never really agreed with Thanos cuz my immediate response to his monologue was why not snap your fingers and create infinite resources rather than a temporary set back of wiping half of all life without warning everyone to be cautious of resourced for next time?

The MCU did Thanos a disservice. Sure he's been retconned more times than The Spectre has had his power level shift (From an intergalactic thug who traveled around in - believe it or not - a helicopter, to a universal mass murdering cult leader, to an ecoterrorist, to, in the old Silver Surfer cartoon, a guy who just likes causing chaos - though for a motive similar to his original one), but his core story was that, as a young Titan, he saw a glimpse of Death herself, and found her to be the most desirable creature in all of Creation.
In order to capture her attention, he felt murdering half of the universe would be just about right (and, in some continuities, it was ... though she eventually dumped him for Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool,
And, IME, most villains are TWO dimensional, not one-dimensional. One dimensional villains are the minions and thugs sent after the heroes (some of which never even get names).

 

[MFontana]

Worth Ending for the Moral Antagonist as the Dark Mirror of the Protagonist​

One-dimensional antagonists are shallow characters, usually evil for evil's sake. For some authors, a 1D antagonist can be well-written, especially when the antagonist falls or loses, the blow feels satisfying. Moreover, readers tend to like evil villains who are defeated by the protagonist decisively (who doesn't like seeing an evil villain punished? Whether in fiction or real life, it's the same).

But what about a 3D antagonist, a character who opposes the protagonist who has a complex and human personality? Perhaps they are evil but have legitimate motives. Or they are heroes in their own version or for the group they defend.

Thanos could be considered a balancer of the cosmos by wiping out half the universe's population. Magneto could be considered a hero to oppressed mutants. And Pain (Nagato Uzumaki) is a dark mirror for Naruto, who desires peace through collective pain as opposed to peace through empathy (which Naruto strives for).

They are concrete representations of what would happen if the protagonist fell down the path of darkness? We understand their reasons for extreme actions, although that doesn't necessarily justify them.

And maybe... if we were in their shoes, we might have done the same. That's why I call them dark mirrors for the protagonist.

As such, their endings are less relevant, with crushing defeats or ignominious deaths like those of evil villains. I even still sympathize with Nagato's death after over a decade.

So, what do you think is a worth ending for a moral antagonist who acts as a dark mirror for the protagonist?

Honestly some of my favorite antagonists aren't even inverted mirrors of the protagonists, but rather they are truly moral individuals. Heroes by their own rights, and they are only opposing the protagonists because of the fact that they are on opposite sides of a war.
Or times when they are both Good characters, but have irreconcilable differences that create the conflict before a Reckoning in which case they must reconcile those differences with a direct confrontation.

That said, El, an antagonist can be complex without necessarily being 'moral', as by definition being moral aligns with being 'Good', and is often used interchangeably. (Good or Moral antagonists are still great for stories when executed well, and are among my personal favorites to see done well).

I'll admit though, that you really did nail the premise with Magneto (Max Eisenhardt) could definitely be considered a 'Moral Antagonist'. He isn't an evil man at heart, he simply has an opposed ideology to Professor Charles Xavier, despite at one time being close friends. Likewise, while I wasn't much of a fan of Naruto, Nagato was easily one of my favorite characters, and I lost interest in the series after his arc was resolved, but compelling as he was, I wouldn't call him a moral antagonist.

As for what would be a worthy ending for such a character, that really depends on the direction and style of the story, but I could see a few different possibilities that could work.

• Kill them. Clean. Direct. Simple.
• Recurring Antagonist. (IE: Magneto)
• Redemption Arc (IE: Loki - In this arc, it usually ends in a noble sacrifice that redeems the former antagonist in their last moments)
• Redeemed Hero Arc (Bigger BBEG Villain - The old antagonist joins forces with the protagonist to confront a greater evil, and perhaps becomes an ongoing rival to the protagonist -- Honestly, this was done best with Vegeta in my opinion)

 

[CharlesEBrown]

• Redemption Arc (IE: Loki - In this arc, it usually ends in a noble sacrifice that redeems the former antagonist in their last moments)
• Redeemed Hero Arc (Bigger BBEG Villain - The old antagonist joins forces with the protagonist to confront a greater evil, and perhaps becomes an ongoing rival to the protagonist -- Honestly, this was done best with Vegeta in my opinion)

Loki is an interesting choice here. In the comics, he started out as pure evil, not even a true trickster god (Tricksters are usually teachers, just ones who teach by negative example - either by tricking a hero into doing the wrong thing so that they have to redeem themselves, or by DOING the wrong thing to show why it should not be done), just a monster.
In the myths, he's far more complex (closer to how he was in most of the MCU stuff, actually) - he even started out as a kind of a dark hero, risking everything to save Asgard (even becoming a female horse to lure an evil stallion away from where they were trying to build the city that would eventually house the Feasthalls of Freya and Odin to house not just the Aesir and the Vanir, but also the dead who are not claimed by Hel (those who are artistic in nature going to Freya, those who are more militaristic going to Odin in Valhalla). His heroism was never recognized, however, as he was part Jotun, and he grew bitter.
Then Thor came along and got credit for everything, even though he as a bit thick in the head, and Loki just lost it, eventually murdering Baldur and, ultimately, using his own child, the Fenrir Wolf, to trigger the Endless Winter and bring about Ragnarok.

 

[pangmida]

I would like to see the authors treat those the same as evil antagonists sometimes. Give them a deep backstory and still have them die a brutal death. I don't see this outcome happen as much.

?‍ I did that. Mass murderer/monster (evil vampire lol). Gave him a pitiful backstory, lots of tragedy and loneliness, showed his descent into madness, then at the end my MC was like “womp womp” and ? him LOL.

 

[MFontana]

?‍ I did that. Mass murderer/monster (evil vampire lol). Gave him a pitiful backstory, lots of tragedy and loneliness, showed his descent into madness, then at the end my MC was like “womp womp” and ? him LOL.

Sounds like... well... every other great vampire story. (Strahd von Zarovich being a personal favorite of mine) Kudos.

 

[pangmida]

Sounds like... well... every other great vampire story. (Strahd von Zarovich being a personal favorite of mine) Kudos.

Admittedly I have barely seen any vampire stories except Twilight. ? why’d I decide to write a vampire romance? Idk. But I’m having fun ?

 

[Golden_Hyde]

Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Its more than choosing to help Aang, it serves as his journey toward individuality and learning to love the people around him rather than forcing a bond with the people that use him for selfish goals. And then when the fire nation falls, he makes it his goal to rebuild after his father's takeover. He's one of the best examples of a redeemed Antagonist.

I can't help but to point out that Zuko is not inherently an antagonist. He's at best a foil and at worst a villain. Yes, he chases Aang all around the world, but he was telling himself that catching the Avatar is the least he can do to prove himself in front of his father, Ozai, until he decided that it doesn't matter anymore and defect.

Another route is redemption by choosing to help the protagonist is their journey.

Also, an antagonist is not easily be redeemed. Their "redemption" is usually death or damnation. And even then, it's not redemption at all, it's retribution.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Sounds like... well... every other great vampire story. (Strahd von Zarovich being a personal favorite of mine) Kudos.

If you've read the novels, Strahd was basically a dark hero - ruthless but usually for the right reasons. Until Sergei brought his fiancee to the Von Zarovich castle and he was smitten.
He has a lot of parallels to, when he's written well, Doctor Victor Von Doom in Marvel comics, actually. His ego often gets in the way of him doing the right thing, but otherwise he is more devoted to his people than anything else.

 

[GlassRose]

I can't help but to point out that Zuko is not inherently an antagonist. He's at best a foil and at worst a villain. Yes, he chases Aang all around the world, but he was telling himself that catching the Avatar is the least he can do to prove himself in front of his father, Ozai, until he decided that it doesn't matter anymore and defect.

Also, an antagonist is not easily be redeemed. Their "redemption" is usually death or damnation. And even then, it's not redemption at all, it's retribution.

I think you're confusing antagonist and villain. Villain means bad guy, antagonist means opposing the protagonist. The protagonist could be a villain, and the antagonist is the hero trying to stop them, for example.

 

[Succubiome]

Coming back to this, I think it's interesting to think about "Retributive Justice" vs "Rehabilitative Justice" vs "No Justice" in this context.

Retributive Justice says "someone who had done wrong must be punished with equal or greater punishment than the wrongs they did".
A thief's hand is cut off would be an example of retributive justice.

Rehabilitative Justice says "someone who has done wrong must be brought back into the society by teaching them, helping them, and potentially making restitution to the victims".
A thief being taught how to live their lives in other ways and returning what they could of what they stole would be an example of rehabilitative justice.

No Justice says "there is no right or wrong, only things that happen".
This has less of a direction, of course-- thief could get away with the thefts, or die purely as a result of their and other's actions. This can easily get confused with the two above, because they're easy to read in either direction unless the pattern repeats.

Now, a protagonist, the society they live in, and the story may not agree with what form of justice is!
For example, a protagonist could try to get a thief to change their ways(Rehabilitative Justice), but then they inevitably die because they've done too much wrong(Retributive Justice). You actually see this particular pattern a lot!
I think it's because a way for protagonists to appear "pure" to audiences who believe in Rehabilitative Justice, while also having the people believe in Retributive Justice be satisfied that the one who did wrong was sufficiently punished-- and of course, these views can be in the same reader. I'm personally not a fan, partially because I've seen a ton of it and partially because I think it's just a convenience to avoid actually considering things-- but I do think it has a broad appeal.

There also might be some wrongs that are treated with Rehabilitative Justice by a character or the story, while other wrongs are treated other ways-- for example, in some stories, stealing or getting into fights might be seen as something that can be redeemed, while beating up your own children or rape are something that always end in death or worse for the one who does it.

There's also "who deserves justice" in these contexts-- in some stories, killing off hundreds of sentient robots or orcs might be something that is fine or can at least be come back from, while killing a single human is moral event horizon crossing.

And sometimes some characters get away with stuff any other character would be punished for-- mostly the protagonist, because both writers and readers are most sympathetic to the protagonist. Sometimes even opposing the protagonist is treated as an unforgivable sin by the story.

There's probably other forms of justice theory out there, but those are the three dynamics I'm familiar with, and I think it's worth thinking about when you think about what "should" happen to an antagonist.

 

[Golden_Hyde]

I think you're confusing antagonist and villain. Villain means bad guy, antagonist means opposing the protagonist. The protagonist could be a villain, and the antagonist is the hero trying to stop them, for example.

I know, and I'm not confusing anything. You should read whom I replied to, and read my reply.

Yes, Zuko can be seemed villainous at the beginning, kept chasing Aang for what he believed that'll earn him Ozai's recognition. But overtime, that erodes as Iroh tempered him to become a better man until his defiance against his father turned him over, earning a redemption.

And that invalidates his position as an antagonist