A while back I was going through a Vice Article on how to be a good white ally because... What else do you do when you have no work to do, eh? And well... Look, there's a lot of backstroy, so, I'll just bluntly put it.
So, I am half working on a writing project which has aspects of guilt because... well... You know? That drama is were life is at, And one interesting aspect is what functions as guilt for things which aren't entirely your fault. In my mind at least, if you are feeling guilty for something you've done, at least you got to have the fun of causing the problem. You know?
1: The confusing morality
2: Redemption is hard to write as establishing the points of where someone can be considered redeemed is.
3: I don't think it's fair for people to be discouraged from criticing the character but also... well, balence is very difficult.
4: Probably the hardest, how do you make a character that functions like this?
While inherent guilt or inherited guilt is not a legally considered idea, it still functions mildly in social or sociatial systems. If not systemically, at least personally. I mean, that's how life is, things which are illogical still occur in reality.
And it is expected for humans to respond to a precieved perptrator or someone connected to a villianous/bad person than it is somewhat understandble for the usual negitive response. Again, if you had someone who was the daughter of a super villain a level of distrust or blame being pined on her is a realistic response.
So, by that metric, morally good character might not just jump at the opportunity to work along side the child of a villain or work along side one of the people from the same faction as the bad guys. Whether it is moral or ethical is a wildly different question.
Redemption is a difficult thing as people have wildly different thresholds. Such as some people see nothing wrong with stealing if the victim is not harmed enough, while others see theift as consistantly a problem.
Hence, the amount of work you have to put in for the character to be considered redeemed. A character who was a mass murder, might be unreemable or you've got to pull some serious bullshit to make up for it, like the Winter Soldiar having been brainwashed and thus as much of a victim as a prepatrator in the situation.
Than you throw in guilt for a crime someone didn't actively commit. And therefore, how is it to be absolved. If you did not steal, but your dad did and now people are giving you the stink eye for being the child of a theif, what do you do to prove you're not like him?
The challenging moral position is dislike of a person who could be argued as a bad person by proxy is kinda fine. I mean, people hating on whites is logical in my mind. It makes sense and is partcually something you can't really argue against as well... History.
Like, how can you tell a victim that no, actually you can't have an irrational response to trama because you might hurt the feelings of what the victim sees as their oppressors. So, rock and hard place.
Besides, extra drama in story telling is always good. I mean, if you have an hero and the child of a villain, there's drama inherently in that. As it makes sense for a member of the heroes to be uneasy around the demographics that make up the villains family and so on.
Another issue is if it's even a morally upstanding position to force on someone in the first place. Why shouls someone have to prove they aren't a monster because of actions they did not control or enact themselves? I suppose a good comparason in my mind is a Golden Child didn't choose to be a golden child, so should they still repent for it?
I think the challenge here is mostly that I kinda don't get the idea of people wanting to work with what is generally seen as a morally compromised individual due to crimes or general morally quesitonalable actions, even if the person is only tangentually connected to it. Like, being the decendent of a villain or so on.
In my mind why not just socailly ostracise the character is they are assumed as a threat. I suppose I just don't see why anyone would want to do above the bare minimum for a person labeled as the decendent of evil.
Beacause, it makes sense to go fight for the rights of someone who is being unfairly treated, but that's usually because the people unfairly treating the character is not entirely justified in that. But if people decide to ostricise a person or group because of what their family did to them, it's not so clear cut, now is it?
Why change, is a pretty interesting issue. mostly, beacuse of the nature of the situation/the people involved, it is difficult to argue against the people who have dislike for the character who is linked to the bad guys. Mostly because they tend to be a victim of some manner to the bad group.
As a result, they should be the focus of the moral center, which also means they are the important aspects of the redpemtion arc. Which would be logical if you've had actual crimes the character commited but by being linked mildly to the crime means there's no real crime to be absolved from.
Furthermore, it's tricky because of character motivations. Namely, in my head it makes sense that a character would want some level of positive social standing, as social interactions is a very important human requirement. Which cause it's own issue, namely is it selfish to want to be seeing as human while still being connected to evil.
I think the other challenge is how much should be expected for the character to change. If a character, who comes from a culture which lead to torment in another character, decides to denouce their culture, is that a good thing? At what point can the one character disagree with framing of their linage or culture without it being a dick move to the victims. Because, again, personally if you're connected to the bad shit you don't really get an excuse to act out. it becomes your resonsibility to make sure everyone around you feels comfortable.
So, here's the challenge. It's actually who is the engine half of the story. Namely, the character has to be reactive to the victims requirements for this to even really work. In other words, the ball is in the vicitms court and that's the only way this story would make sense.
If a character is trying to earn redemption from their exstience, the only ones who could absolve them is the people most affected. Which is mildly interesting as you could really write some good spirals here, if you ask me. But it also means you have to make sure that the focus is still over-archingly the victim.
Again, a victim reacting harshly or even up-to and beyond harmfully to a character due to trama cause by relations around the character is logical. The challenge is where does it no longer count as logical.
An example would be someone how looks like the villain due to family resemblance might be shunned on sight. Or a person who has heard the villains speech pattern might try to police how the character talks even if just in mannerism and so on.
Furthermore, people are inherently bias. Of course the character would assume that they're good even if evidence suggests otherwise, therefore it midly forces an external judge rather than relying on a biased or potentially unrealible POV. As a result, why rely on the character as the fixation of the plot instead of the victim?
My challenge is it doesn't make sens to me to remove the victim as the key player of how this works. If the victim never decides to absolve the character than so shall it be. It's unfortunate but so what? Why is the character the fixation instead of the victim? I fill like thats how the overarching moral system is. If that makes sense?
Besides, in my mind at least it doesn't make sense to not just defualt to trying to ensure the victim is fine above all else. If that makes sense. Most moral structures are built around the idea of helping the weak or victimised, if that makes sense? So, why not uphold that consistantly.