Why shouldn't he fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the guy he betrayed and risk their lives together?
Oh, that sounds so much better and more interesting than 'and then he died'.
It doesn't have to be suffering, but it's as good a proof as any
One thing I've found interesting is people saying they want proof. That never occurred to me as something the audience might be looking for, and now I'm wondering why not. I think perhaps I don't categorise characters as good or bad per se. I can recognise they are filling the narrative role of hero or villain or whatever, and of course I form views of their actions and character as I would of real people, with good points and bad points and maybe a provisional overall judgement, but I don't have a sort of mental ledger with the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other. For that matter, it isn't exactly unusual for me to start thinking that the designated villain has a point, or that the hero is not perhaps living up to the highest possible moral standard, without it spoiling the story for me. I think I just don't assume that the moral worth of the characters has to match their role in the story. Hence I don't need proof that someone has moved from one side to the other. Also, I generally assume people really could have been good all along (maybe not saintly virtuous, but just run of the mill good) if they'd either done a better job of resisting some temptation or they hadn't been mistaken as to the nature of the good.
no subject
Oh, that sounds so much better and more interesting than 'and then he died'.
It doesn't have to be suffering, but it's as good a proof as any
One thing I've found interesting is people saying they want proof. That never occurred to me as something the audience might be looking for, and now I'm wondering why not. I think perhaps I don't categorise characters as good or bad per se. I can recognise they are filling the narrative role of hero or villain or whatever, and of course I form views of their actions and character as I would of real people, with good points and bad points and maybe a provisional overall judgement, but I don't have a sort of mental ledger with the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other. For that matter, it isn't exactly unusual for me to start thinking that the designated villain has a point, or that the hero is not perhaps living up to the highest possible moral standard, without it spoiling the story for me. I think I just don't assume that the moral worth of the characters has to match their role in the story. Hence I don't need proof that someone has moved from one side to the other. Also, I generally assume people really could have been good all along (maybe not saintly virtuous, but just run of the mill good) if they'd either done a better job of resisting some temptation or they hadn't been mistaken as to the nature of the good.