: Re: How unadvisable is it to flip the protagonist into a villain? Essentially, I have a protagonist who I set up as a 'main' good guy in one of my series. However, in my final series, I intend

@Berumen699

Vote Up Vote Down

It's not unadvisable. There are many well-written characters that go through such a flip.

Harvey Dent, the once white knight of Gotham, starts revenge killing everyone who was involved in the death of the woman he loved. Satiating his neverending need for vengeance, he takes if far enough to threaten the good guys who were not to blame.
Victor Fries (Dr Freeze) becomes a villain not because he wants to cause chaos and mayhem, but because he wants to save his wife, whose life hangs in the balance because of mistakes he made. He only turns to crime because there is no legal way for him to continue his research (and get access to the materials he needs for it).
Stannis Baratheon wanted to take the Throne from the corrupt Lannisters. Through hardship, he was forced to make compromises and take approaches that were considerably less ethical than his initial (rightful) claim to the throne. He ended up burning his daughter alive as a sacrifice to his god.
Walter White is a classic example here. He tried to make enough money so that his family would not sink into poverty, but he got too attached to the status that came with the territory. Eventually, he ruined his family's life because of the crime life he had started to save his family's life.
Jimmy McGill, as a lawyer (ignoring his past) starts off as a well-intentioned rulebreaker who cuts corners to help people. Although we haven't seen the exact flip yet, we know that in Breaking Bad, he's the lawyer for a drug cartel and has no moral issues with the clients he's defending (he actively helps them further their undertaking).
Anakin Skywalker is another classic example. Arguably, this is the main story of Star Wars. Compromising your ideals in order to enact moral justice, but eventually becoming the person that compromises their ideals for personal justice (revenge).
Frank Underwood maybe doesn't really "flip", but the viewer's perception of him changes. Initially, Frank is an off-beat politician who's very good at pulling strings where he needs to. As House Whip, he's really just doing his job very well. We then see him set his sights on the White House, and we still think he's a good guy, because he was unfairly denied the promotion that he was promised. But at some point, Frank starts killing innocent people to further his goal, which is where the moral wagon goes off the rails.
Clyde Shelton (Law Abiding Citizen) is the victim of an increadibly violent home invasion. His wife and child die, and IIRC it was implied that his daughter was also raped by one of the invaders. A corrupt legal system fails to punish those responsible. Clyde responds by taking out everyone responsible for the corrupt trial. Initially, he kills those who actively bribed/lied for personal gain, which viewers could still see as moral justice. But little by little, Clyde starts killing people who were arrogant but not actively compromising the legal system. He ends up using abomb to kill people, not caring about collateral damage and casualties.

These are all very successful renditions of this "flipped protagonist" approach. However, the success of this flip vastly hinges on a key point.

The character's intention is understandable, and in line with their personal ideology when they were still the good guy.

Harvey Dent is still punishing those who hurt the innocent
Dr Freeze is still researching his technology and wants to live a happy life with his wife
Frank Underwood is still trying to gain political power
Anakin is still driven by his emotions (though the underlying emotion has changed from compassion to anger)
Jimmy McGill is still trying to help others by cutting corners (he's still averse to violent crime, but he's never had a problem with non-violent crime).
Stannis Baratheon is still trying to get the Iron Throne.
Clyde Shelton is still trying to punish his family's murderers.

The people didn't change. Their path simply diverged from the plot, and has taken them to a point where they are orthogonal to the plot's morals.

You can't have your character decide to change their personal ideology on a whim. People are who they are. Though they may surprise you, their underlying motive will never change.

If their underlying motive changes, that creates a disjointed character. It comes across as a character who changes because the plot needs them to.

To the plot (and reader), the character took a wrong turn and ends up becoming an obstacle instead of the solution.
But to the character, the plot abandoned them when they needed it, they had to do it all on their own, and the character ends up seeing the plot as an obstacle instead of the solution.

Harvey Dent needed Rachel to not succumb to the corruption that Harvey was fighting. The legal system allowed for Rachel to die. The legal system is the problem, according to Harvey.
Victor Fries needs to save his wife. No one wants to fund this research. The lack of funds is an obstacle, robbery is a solution.
Stannis Baratheon wanted the Throne to be a moral ruler. His morals prevented him from taking the throne. Stannis started seeing his self-discipline and ethics as an obstacle to taking the Throne.
Walter White needed the meth business to make money for his family. When he initially behaved friendly, he was taken advantage of and he did not make much money. But by abandoning his friendly demeanor, he made more money. Softheartedness was an obstacle to getting enough money, so he abandoned his softheartedness.
Anakin saw the Jedi's emotional restraint as a cause for the evil things that occur. Therefore, Anakin left self-restraint behind in order to punish those who do evil things.
Frank Underwood was denied the promotion he worked hard to get. Everyday (so-called "moral" politics) caused Frank to lose something he was entitled to. Frank decides to abandon ethics in order to receive what he could not get in an ethical way.

All of these characters have felt wronged by the supposedly "ethical" way of doing things; and have therefore decided to fix things in a way that seems fair enough to them.

(0)

Login to post a comment!