How unadvisable is it to flip the protagonist into a villain?

Question

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 to make him turn to the dark side and oppose my other protagonists (from my other series).

My question:

Should I avoid turning my protagonist into an antagonist? Are there any foreseeable problems with this? Will this be a problem for readers? Any tips or tricks to handle this?

Thanks!

EDIT (in response to comments and answers):

I should've mentioned this before, but it's clear in his series that the protagonist-turned-antagonist is very devious, and he has had hostile intentions previously towards the protagonists of the other series.

Answer 1

Sounds like a great idea!

Seriously though: the antagonist is the single most important character to any plot. The very best antagonists have motivations and feelings that readers can understand and empathize with. A former protagonist as an antagonist sounds really good. Both the reader and the author should be in for a fun ride, because it is very likely you will see your character grow in ways you didn't expect when you had them boxed in as a "good guy".

Think about people you know in real life. If you really observe people, you come to understand that nobody is a "good guy". Sure there are people who are generally good and generally do good things, but nobody is perfect, and even the best people have thoughts and motivations you may not approve of. Even more interesting is the fact that two people can be absolutely opposed to one another without either one being objectively "wrong" or "evil". They might just have goals and motivations that are diametrically opposed.

Imagine a city council wants more tax money to build a park. A local business wants to pay less tax money so they can afford to give Christmas bonuses. The business owner isn't "evil", in fact, he wants to give Christmas bonuses! The city council isn't "evil" either, they just want a park for the kids. Sometimes goals just conflict in an irreconcilable way. That's the real world. That kind of plot provides a lot more food for thought than a two dimensional "good versus evil" morning cartoon romp.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

This is great if done well, but it's often done poorly. In Star Wars Anakin goes from good guy to bad guy without much subtlety or believability. And in Harry Potter, Tom Riddle is always a bad guy, he just hides it at first.

A better example is The Good Earth where the main character starts off as a poor, hardworking peasant, and ends up as the same kind of wealthy, dissolute landowner he used to despise. Similarly, the central character of Michael in the Godfather Trilogy starts out as an idealistic youth shielded from his family's criminal activities, but is drawn by family loyalties deeper and deeper into crime and corruption. Yet another example is Bastian Bathalzar Bux in The Neverending Story (novel) whose story arc in the second half of the book goes from hero to villain and back. Finally, a good real-life example is Kenya's Jomo Kenyatta who gradually transitioned from freedom fighter to dictator. Using those as models, you should take a complex character, with both bad and good traits, and show how his early successes give way to corruption and arrogance once his circumstances change. Remember, however, he should continue to think of himself as the hero. His actions will always seem justified to himself.

Even these examples, however, are more properly hero-to-antihero transitions, where the ambiguous figure retains the role of protagonist. It would be an interesting but worthwhile challenge to transition the reader's sympathies entirely away from the original hero. It's worth noting, however, that most readers will want to see this character at least partially redeemed at the end. If he isn't redeemed, then the overall arc of your series is a tragedy, and should be approached as such.

Answer 4

You readers are invested in your character. There are multiple things they like about him, right? Those things cannot just disappear - that would leave your reader angry, frustrated, and feeling betrayed by you. The character's Fall needs to be believable.

And after the Fall, there's the question of Redemption. Your readers are invested in the character, right? They empathise with him. They'd hope for Redemption for him. What about your new protagonists, then? Do they acknowledge any of this? Do they hope for anything other than your old protagonist's death? Do you offer him a chance of redemption? (The character doesn't have to accept that chance - he can choose to turn away from it. The moment of choice would be powerful either way.)

Most importantly, is your new antagonist as complex a character as he was before his Fall? If you flatten him out, you will lose readers.

Answer 5

The good character who turns bad is a classic feature of literature. It is the essence of the literary form we call tragedy.

Thus Macbeth opens with high praise for the virtuous Macbeth:

SOLDIER.

Doubtful it stood;
As two spent swimmers that do cling together
And choke their art. The merciless Macdonwald,—
Worthy to be a rebel,—for to that
The multiplying villainies of nature
Do swarm upon him,—from the Western isles
Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore. But all's too weak;
For brave Macbeth,—well he deserves that name,—
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smok'd with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion,
Carv'd out his passage, till he fac'd the slave;
And ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements.

DUNCAN.

O valiant cousin! worthy gentleman!

SOLDIER.

As whence the sun 'gins his reflection
Shipwrecking storms and direful thunders break;
So from that spring, whence comfort seem'd to come
Discomfort swells. Mark, King of Scotland, mark:
No sooner justice had, with valour arm'd,
Compell'd these skipping kerns to trust their heels,
But the Norweyan lord, surveying vantage,
With furbish'd arms and new supplies of men,
Began a fresh assault.

DUNCAN.

Dismay'd not this
Our captains, Macbeth and Banquo?

SOLDIER.

Yes;
As sparrows eagles, or the hare the lion.

But Macbeth turns bad, and thereby hangs the tragedy. This is all classic stuff and some of the greatest works of literature follow this pattern.

The challenge in what you propose, though, it that series literature, essentially popcorn books meant to be consumed quickly and ravenously, don't tend to deal much in tragedy. Their taste is more bitter than popcorn, and I'm not sure if the audience you will have built over the earlier books is going to be ready for bitter herbs with their popcorn.

Answer 6

I want to share an example of how this was done wrong.

Let us turn to the great bastion of bad writing - 2000s computer games.

Enter MechWarrior 4. You play as Ian Dressari, rebel leader. You are trying to overtake Duke Roland, who killed your family and usurped the throne. You do it by driving big, cool-ass mechs.

plot happens

The game ends with your tooshie back in the rightful throne. All is well in the world. For the entire game, your character was portrayed as being a good person - friendly, inspiring loyalty, good sense, etc. You even have opportunities to put yourself at risk helping people not directly associated with your cause - I think a couple instances there is NO game benefit for doing so.

But wait, an expansion pack has been announced!

Enter MechWarrior 4: Black Knight

Now, suddenly, your former player character is the bad guy! The reasoning? "Oh, well he wasn't a good duke after all." No further elaboration.

The writers left the players with literary blue balls. No great exposition on how Ian's thirst for vengeance for his slain family led him to abandon the people around him. No discussion on how his desire to insulate himself from future assassins and treachery meant that he refused to hire competent people to run the kingdom. Just "Oh, he was bad."

You can do it. It can be powerful. Others gave the example of Darth Vader. Without offering spoilers, Brandon Sanderson has a lot of face-heel (and heel-face) turns in his writing - all of them are pretty satisfying because he builds on the reasoning for 300 pages before it happens, even for minor characters like Vyre. You have to start justifying it from the start of the story, and build on it until the only reasonable conclusion that your readers can reach is "Oh, well of course he's a bad guy. Look at all the ways he's wronged others in his quest so far."

Answer 7

I think it is a very good thing, to turn the main character into a villian. It shows, that even the good guys can turn into villians if they are pushed hard enough.

BUT

And this is a big but, because it is very important. Don't create a villian, just cause you want to. Nothing disappoints more, than a villian out of nothing. Every villian so far had his reasons for turning to the dark side. Anakin Skywalker wanted to protect his beloved and his mind got corrupted (and the final push after thinking he had killed everything he loved). Personal loss is indeed a very good reason for turning to the dark. Everyone has a reason, that justifies their actions.

A possible scenario for turning a hero into a villian is: In the whole time of his journey he had seen so many suffering and probably lost some friends or beloved. In turn to change something and oppose (insert evil/bad/influential bad person that let this happen here) he must become somone bad.

Remember: Every villian is just a villian in his enemys eyes. For others he can be the hero.

So now to the most important point in my answer:

Should the hero become the villian?

Sure, if you can justify it logically there is no problem. But also be sure to remember from what party you write the view. If you write the view of a loyal knight of the king, then the hero might be the villian, but the closest friends of the hero might see him as a savior instead of a villian. Then the king would be the villian.

So you see: There is not the ultimate formula for "good guy turning bad". It is all just a matter of reasons, reactions, logic and the point of view and what you as the author make out of it

Answer 8

The main problem will likely be that your readers should like your protagonist - you want them to read a whole series with him as the main character after all. If the character you like suddenly without any warning turns into the super bad guy they will ask themselves "What happened?!" and they may not like that.

Furthermore you have to be careful about how you present the protagonist-turned-antagonist. If you are for example writing from the first person perspective it should be obvious that he sometimes has evil plans. If not you should think very carefully about what it was that made him turn to the dark side. What was the reason for him to suddenly be one of the bad guys? Is it maybe one of his main character traits, like never breaking a promise or bringing someone he loved back from the dead or because it's better to have a good dictator than a bad democracy, ...? Why would he do that and why did he not do something like that when he was the protagonist?

But it's possible - with enough foreshadowing and knowing that it might turn away people that want their favourite to stay their favourite.

---

If you already showed that your initial protagonist doesn't like your later protagonist(s) and that he is not afraid of going... unusual... paths to achieve his goals it might even feel normal or like the expected climax of the story - people were expecting that something should happen. You should make it feel like the books of your first "protagonist" are missing something. The final fight. Like it's not over yet and they still have some business to take care of with the other(s). Then your readers will anticipate it and will not be surprised or even turned away by this. Still, a protagonist changing to the dark side may feel a bit weird for some people and there might still be some who won't accept that ending - you can't please everyone.

Answer 9

I think a great example of this is the character of Walter White in Breaking Bad. He starts out as a meek chemistry teacher trying to make some money to fight cancer, and ends as a drug kingpin who betrays those around him.

I think this works in a way because even though he transforms from protagonist to antagonist, there are still worse antagonists in the show that he goes against. So even though it is shocking to see him change into this bad character, you still are pulling for him to prevail against even worse characters.

Answer 10

Great answers all around. My fiance and I have been watching Babylon 5 recently and I think that another good example would be Captain John Sheridan.

Technically speaking, Sheridan is the good guy all throughout the series, but he constantly faces political spin about his actions. In some cases he is even set up to be perceived as a megalomaniac by people close to him, because of the difficult decisions he is forced to make.

So it would be worth examining the prospect of having your protagonist perceived as the bad guy to the point where the reader starts to wonder if they are descending from hero to antihero.

EDIT:

An interesting alternative would be one where an "antagonist" is set up to be the "bad guy", but is later revealed to be a necessary - if harsh - bulwark against the "real bad guys." Without giving too much away, this scenario was demonstrated beautifully by Studio Trigger's hit animes Kill La Kill and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann.

Answer 11

I've read all the answers, but nobody made any mention to one of my favorite villain protagonist: Lelouch vi Britannia.

He is from anime, so it's not expected to be found in the others answers, but I suggest you to watch the series (there are two seasons), he is the main character and the villain as well and you can get good references from them.

To put it simply, Lelouch is the throne heir of his country, Britannia, but for unknown reasons his mother died one night and his sister, Nunnally, ended up disabled because the trauma, and because all of this their father, the king of Britannia, sent his children (Lelouch and Nunnally) to Japan, the last conquisted country by the empire.

Lelouch grows as a normal student hiding his true identity as a Britannian prince, he is a genius and knows how to manipulate people and what is more he receives (this is related with the plot) a power to command whatever order to anyone just for looking directly at their eyes, what gives him a great chance to accomplish all his objectives. In the beginning Lelouch only wants to know why his mother died and take revenge for his father for doing nothing about it, and for sending him and his sister to exile. As result he used a false identity as Zero and established a criminal organization with japanese people (they wanted to recover their country, but Lelouch used it in his advantage) calling it justice against the empire, but in the end his methods ended up killing innocent people, like families of his dearest friends. During the series you see how his sense of justice to make a happier world for Nunnally got more and more rotten, until the point that he doesn't care who dies for taking revenge of his mother and sister disgraces, and at the same time he is fighting his best friend, a Japanese boy who is one of the best soldiers of Britannia.

I don't know about the plot of your stories, but there must be a good reason to turn your main character into a villain, not hating the others characters is enough, we can have different opinions but we can respect each other. In the case I'm talking about a character who wanted a happier world ended up corrupted by a lot of despair and even so, he saved the world. There's a variety of villains you can choose, not only being the evil one because he hates everything or because he simply enjoys doing evil, there can be villains like Lelouch who wants justice, others can pursue their personal dreams by harming people (in this case, they don't have any other option), or to take revenge for a loved one who was not recognized and forgotten by injustices, or even characters who are good as anyone but against their will they become the more evil characters for being saved again, they can be the main villains but they can be good as well.

In my personal opinion the last ones are the best, because in the end they are good people who does evil by stronger reasons. I hope this helped a bit!

---

And if you want more detailed examples of evil protagonist/characters with those profiles, here I leave some I like a lot:

• Lelouch vi Britannia from Code Geass
• Altair from Re:Creators
• Celestia Ludenberg from Danganronpa
• Nagito Komaeda from Danganronpa
• Orchid from Maplestory
• The Governor from The Walking Dead
• The main character from Fire Emblem Fates Conquest
• Tom Baldwin from The 4400
• Obito from Naruto

Answer 12

This could be clever, but simply "turning to the [arbitrarily] dark side" has been done, quite literally in Star Wars, but in many other examples of media. It sounds like from your edits, you have two groups being followed, and they're coming together in conflict.

I'm not sure if this fits your story, but one interesting way of handling this was in the Golden Sun RPG series for Gameboy Advance. In the first entry, the player follows one party of adventurers fighting against former friends and some seemingly pure evil chaps. The first game's party doesn't know the whole story. In the second entry in the series, the player now controls the "antagonists" of the last game.

Throughout the above example, the story is told in a third-person limited perspective. Even in the second game, with both groups' motives revealed, decisions must be made and character growth occurs, without all the characters of both groups necessarily having a binary good/evil alignment.

Answer 13

I don't think there's any reason not to turn your protagonist into an antagonist, so long as you can do it realistically. People don't change all at once, and the thing to remember is that seeing is believing. As long as the readers can see the change happening (they don't necessarily have to know where it's going, just that something is going somewhere) they can continue to suspend their disbelief.

If you're looking for tips and tricks, the magic words are compromise and rationalisation. I assume that as a protagonist, they start off with a moral schema relatively similar to most of ours. Whether because of difficult positions or conflicting motivations, the protagonist must make a compromise on their ideals. That would be fine if they just admit that they failed to live up to their own expectations and vow to do better next time, while leaving their ideals intact. What's more likely given our current understanding of human nature, especially in stressful situations, is that They'll try to justify their actions. At first this will be in the context of their original moral schema, but eventually their ideals themselves will change. That's how you gradually turn them into an antagonist.

Just my two cents, You know the needs of your story better than I do.