Redemption; too easy?

Silent Balde seems to change her mind with every mission she's on - she's not a very reliable example

She might just be doing that to try and annoy you though - she is still half a Villain, after all

Suppose Alice murders Bob. Bob is now dead, and Alice killed him. Alice surrenders to the police and is sentenced to a term in prison. When, 20 years later, Alice is released, her term of punishment is over, but her act is not redeemed: Bob is still dead, and Alice still killed him. Alice goes on to save Charles from certain death. Her act is not redeemed: Bob is still dead, and Alice still killed him. Why is this distinction important? Suppose Alice first saves Charles, then voluntarily spends 20 years in prison. When she gets out, does she have a license to kill Bob?

There's an important distinction here between "irredeemable act", an act that cannot be compensated, and "irredeemable person", a person who has lost the ability to do good. I believe in irredeemable acts, but I think that the majority of irredeemable acts are not done by irredeemable people. From a societal standpoint, it behooves us to motivate everyone, including people who have done irredeemable acts, to do good from this time forward.

I like how people were complaining about how redside couldn't let you be terribly evil and now that we have tip missions that do let you be terrible and evil, people complain that it's too evil.

I can think of two rationalizations that incorporate in-game lore:

1) Its a Nemesis plot. (Isn't everything?) He drugged your hero to make him pliable/unstable in order to use him as a tool. As a result, your hero did a bunch of horrible things until he was captured and deprogrammed/detoxed.

2) Your hero was captured by Crey and subjected to various experiments. As a result, he gained new powers but became unbalanced. Eventually he was captured, restored to sanity and resumed his heroic career.

At any rate, the knowledge of his past (albeit unwilling) crimes can drive your hero to work even harder to fight evil and give him a personal grudge against the specific villain group that used him.

To the OP's discussion

Some words are tossed around a bit wrong in this conversation:

FORGIVENESS is, choosing to pardon, remit, or overlook the mistake, fault, offense, hurt or injury of the offender without demanding, a penalty, punishment or retribution. It is usually considered an individual (or God's) act, not institutional.

To "REDEEM ONESELF" is to offer REPARATION --the making of amends for wrong or injury done, by means of some sacrifice or effort. It is usually driven internally. One can be told to 'pay reparation' for a broken window, for example, but following that external order isn't redemption... it is merely offering reparation out of duress. Redemption is a voluntary effort at reparation.

Accepting that reparation has been met is not true forgiveness, as you, the forgiver, required a penalty be paid. If FULL reparation has been made, there is nothing to forgive- reparation has been met. As Venture noted, though, there are acts that cannot be undone, that no act of reparation, no matter how genuine or how strong, can really set things right. The person may have demonstrated a contrite heart and an honest effort, but someone is still DEAD.

In those instances, we're asked to forgive what cannot be repaid- that difference in debt between full restoral and the act of reparation. Some people of strong spiritual belief may forgive with no reparation necessary... some will never be able to forgive no matter the magnitude of the reparation.

Thus, It is an individual decision to seek reparation and to grant forgiveness.

PUNISHMENT is the penalty applied for an offense.
Serving out your punishment may include some degree of financial reparation, but that is not the primary purpose of punishment. It is something usually set by an authority granted the power to punish.

Finally, a PARDON is a release from the penalty of an offense, in this context, it is granted by an official given the autority. It could be that the pardoner considered the individual's acts of redemption sufficient, or that the punishment had exceeded reasonable levels for the offense... or that he just feels like it (depending on how much discretion the law gives the pardoner).

Usually, a pardon comes after the conviction of a crime (the US justice department recommends petitioners wait 5 years after conviction) but at the federal level, it can be granted beforehand (like Ford's pardon of Nixon)... so it is possible to pardon someone that's never been officially convicted. (That effectively negates any reason TO convict him...)



--------------

In CoH context:

A superhero, in his quest to stop villains, kills many people, including some "collateral damage." Eventually, it takes him to full "villainhood." Realizing the folly of his ways, he strives to redeem himself, offering reparation through those good deeds. He does many good works, but his former crimes are still there. People close to the victims of his acts have not forgiven him, the state still seeks punishment for his prior acts, and his effort at redemption are fully voluntary. He does his best to work within the law and demonstrate what's right, he hopes that someday he will have done enough, but he can never resurrect the dead.


We'll say that a presidential (and state) commission on superhuman affairs has the broad power to review a hero and issue recommendations for a grant of pardon by the Governor/President. This action, while controversial, recognizes that, terrible as his actions may have been in the past, the value this superhuman may bring to the community is too great to waste and his efforts appear genuine. It is thus deemed to be in the best interest in the state to let him continue those actions.

The other heroes that encounter the fallen hero and see his redemption bring the case to the panel. The panel reviews and recommends a pardon to the president/governor. The pardon says that no official punishment will be sought by the state for the fallen hero's action, allowing him to continue to act heroically and doing good within the state's boundaries without risk of being arrested for those prior acts. Future actions, however, are not covered by the pardon, so if he strays again, he may be arrested and punished for these.

None of that means that all the people that were hurt by his acts must forgive him. Forgiveness never entered the equation. A good roleplayer would have the hero suffering a tarnished image for some time, if not permanently. Some people will find the strength to forgive the hero, but some, like Venture, will never accept him again. Ever

If you're taking your character redside just to get him a power that you think he should have, I'd strongly suggest not putting it in his story - especially if, as noted, it would add other things to that story that don't fit/aren't wanted.

If you wanted to go through fall and redemption for its own sake, that'd be something different, IMO.

I think the best way to go about it as an RPer if you're concerned about it is to simply use the missions within the alignment system as a mechanic to tell your story and not as the story itself. I'm putting a couple chars through the system one way or another but in my mind, none of the actual missions or events within are canon to my character's story, simply an in-game means to an end to get them to a place that makes sense for them.