Post History
Just because you can understand how the villain got that way doesn't mean you have to agree with the villain's actions. Most people can understand how Black Panther's Erik Killmonger turned out th...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-13T12:00:46Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/36334 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T08:53:09Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/36334 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
Just because you can understand how the villain got that way doesn't mean you have to agree with the villain's actions. Most people can understand how _Black Panther_'s Erik Killmonger turned out the way he did. (More of that discussion in [my answer to this question.](https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/35934/hate-to-love-love-to-hate/35937#35937)) That doesn't mean that the viewer has to agree that his solution is the right one. We can accept that Erik has a point without endorsing his plan as the only correct response. Also, if your villain has a point, but your hero has to kill the villain anyway, I think that's good moral shading which you _should_ carry into the next books. That's something your hero should wrestle with. "Was I right? Did Villain have a point? Did Villain _really_ deserve to die?" Your villain can be evil _and_ understandable. His death can be both necessary _and_ a tragedy.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2018-05-22T21:31:59Z (over 6 years ago)
Original score: 33