This character I’m developing (named Aleksander) is a villain protagonist, and I’m wanting to know how sympathetic or monstrous he is to you guys. He’s grown up in a hellish dystopia where the average person has no privacy from the State, where anything against the State is harshly punished, and where you can be enlisted to go into a battle at any time. Think any historical fascistic/socialist state, such as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Not a nice place to live. But Aleksander was chosen for a project where humans can be converted into ‘Kaiju Shifters’, who can assume the form of a giant monster and are functionally immortal. After a few battles where he’s forced to massacre armies completely incapable of matching his power, he decides that he has nothing to lose in taking out the State. So he gathers allies among the other shifters, and formulated a plan to spread the ’monster agent’ across the surface and convert almost the entire human race (aside from buried or underwater cities) into these immortal shifters. In his thought process, if anyone can become the most powerful being on the planet simply at random, and if humans are stripped of all biological needs, then society is useless and the State will crumble into anarchy. He wouldn’t even need to ravage and attack cities. He’s of course opposed by people who point out the flaws in his plan- such as the massacres and chaos that’ll result, and the lack of any sort of policing mechanism to protect the weak. But in the end, Aleksander successfully transforms the majority of mankind, and returns the planet to a chaotic and ‘free’ state. So to reiterate, how sympathetic is Aleksander?
Not very. He's got the right idea, but he's going about it the wrong way. If he really wants the people to rise up and overthrow the State, he should show everyone what the State is doing, or try to destroy the State himself without resorting to mass slaughter. Having him succeed in a mad plan like that will just a bad taste in the reader's mouth.
I will point out that it’s not completely insane- people don’t age, sicken, starve or thirst to death. He does save a lot of people from hellish conditions. It’s also hard to show people what the State does because it’s largely common knowledge. The majority simply doesn’t care, as this is ’the norm’, and the State has more Shifters than just him.
Well as an antagonistic protag, you have a lot going on. Sympathetic, not so much, considering your example societies and those who confessed to what they did just said: "I was just following orders." Sounds like you have written in a self perpetuating dystopia, where leaving for better societal norms would be more effective. Granted nudging them in the direction of a faction that isn't fond of the one he left, and is known to cause problems for them will be a better way to get him on the path to bringing in social change for his original faction. Think of it like North and South Korea, and how one is reasonable and nice, and the other is a hell hole. Look into interviews of people who have managed to escape NK into SK, and sort it out kinda like that moving your story forward.
First you need to decide how sympathetic you want him to be to your audience. Then write him to your requirement. It depends on how you write him. I know that is not what you want to hear, but true nevertheless. The audience can emphasise even with less than ideal heroes, written well so their motives are understandable.
I can't shake the feeling that he should be the protag, not the antag. You describe him and the State, but the heros are just a bunch of random nobodies who try to tell him "no, stop, this is bad". Flip the script - I think he'd work better as the "hero" who think he's doing the right thing and eventually has to grapple with the morality of his choices.
State systems tend to survive when they are supported by most of its citizens, and crumble when opposed by the majority. A bad system can inflate its support through propaganda and lies. A lack of privacy could be justified as part of the fight against terrorism. Harsh punishments are often popular, perceived as a strong law-and-order policy. Those who resist military service can be called traitors and vilified as 'siding with the enemies of the country'. The whole system could be corrupt and oppressive, denying the people basic necessities in order to line the pockets of the rich ruling class. Yet the people take comfort in the mistaken idea any alternative would be worse. If you have a right-wing dystopia, to evoke sympathy, you could have the MC lose a loved one as a direct result of a government polity. His brother who died in a war waged for dubious reasons. His sister who dropped out of college because she didn't have the money to pay the extortionate fees, got into trouble with a loan-shark and ended up as a prostitute. His mother who died because she didn't have the money for the extortionate price of life-saving medical treatment; treatment other countries provide for free. Yet the people support the system, claiming the country has the best military, healthcare and education systems in the world. Anyone who points out that those things are useless if they don't serve the people, is labelled a traitor who should be executed for treason. If you have a left-wing dystopia, this could be much like being in the army. Accomodation, food, clothing, training, medical treatment, etc, would all be provided by the state, and in return, the state would require each citizen do their duty. To evoke sympathy, you could look to the psychological effects of such a regime, and the poor treatment of those who suffer mental conditions caused by it. Also. the open discrimination against those who don't fit the profile of the perceived ideal. The battle needs to be for hearts and minds. I'm not sure how turning into a monster is going to help. Those he would fight would be the police officers and soldiers that would be citizens of the state and effectively his own people. The people would be more likely to unite against him, thinking of him as a terrorist. Generally, I'd try to consider the issues more deeply than a 'good guys and bad guys shoot-'em-up' type thing.
It's hard to be sympathetic with 'might makes right' and 'I will destroy humanity as we know it in order to serve my end.' It also seems extreme/shortsighted to view anarchy as an antidote to tyranny, even in the shoes of someone suffering the conditions imposed by said tyranny. Though that will depend more on how you write it than the summary itself. My 2 cents.
Oh sorry. I didn't see your last question that was asking how sympathetic he is. Honestly I think not very much cause the end result is still something not positive(anarchy). But I don't really know if it was better than the previous state after all the Kaiju destruction. Also since the Kaiju are immortal and if given the freedom to act on their own may choose a dark path.
He doesn't feel very sympathetic to me, but that might just be that from your description is more focused on his goals and actions than on him as a character. The idea that he's not only getting rid of an evil government but also going to defeat death itself for all humanity (granted by making everyone not human anymore, but still) could be spun to make his motivations more sympathetic, and by proxy him a more sympathetic character. But right now his motivation just seems to flawed.
Based on this alone, he doesn't sound sympathetic or redeemable. He does terrible things before you start him on his story arc, and is looking to do terrible things to resolve his story arc.
I think it will depend on his personal motivation. Does he just want to even the playing field and make everyone equal or does he want anarchy? If he's adamant that he wants equality then he's likely an optimist to such a degree that he believes in the inherent goodness of man and will not be swayed by anyone trying to prove to him that humans will take advantage of each other the moment they power. Depending on his motivations, at its core, this story will be about the inherent nature of humanity and if it's altruistic or self-serving. Or a political discussion about anarchy vs organised government.
Anyone can be sympathetic if their motivations are clear and logical, and they're splashed with generous amounts of tragic backstory. It doesn't hurt if they're good looking and charming either. Also, the worse the society, the better the person trying to bring it down seems, no matter how short-sighted their plans may be. From your summary it's unclear what the story actually is about. Is it Aleksander's personal journey? Is it a critique of how the modern society and/or pollution is turning people into monsters? Is it an action blast? You would emphasise different things in each, I think.
Well, it’s more a study of Freedom vs. Order. Aleksander lives in a world where you’re often pretty safe if you stick to the rules. Just toe the State line, and you’ll be fine. But as a result, there’s no privacy, no self-determination, no freedom. So he jumps to the exact opposite side of the scale. Does that make sense?
Sure, that makes sense. 1984 paints an absolutely terrifying dystopia from enforcing order and I'm sure most people would feel sympathy for someone trying to bring that down. Of course, in 1984 the tragedy is the individual's inability to go against the system. It sounds like you're going more for the idea that there is no hope because an individual can go against the system but the result is just a different kind of bad? In a hopeless world, I'm sure there's a way to make the reader feel sympathy for a character for trying, even if it's futile, or wrong, as long as he doesn't straight up kill puppies to do it.
Well, I’d say that the theme is that absolute freedom is preferable to absolute control/order. Although there is definitely a strain of suffering, and suffering more or less will never fully end. And yeah, he won’t be killing puppies for his goals, lol.
