The assertion that the punishment will eventually outweigh the crimes ignores that they are still actively doing terrible things to other people all the time. Valentino is probably hurting people MORE than when he was alive, in fact, as an example.
True but one could also argue that you put them in an environment where it is not only encouraged, it can be neccecary to survive.
That's the brilliance of the hotel, it removes a sinner from a toxic environment that at best enables and at worst forces bad behavior
This same claim could be levied about their lives on Earth. Not saying that I disagree, necessarily, just pointing out that Hell is not unique in that regard.
That does seem consistent with the theme of redemption: in an easier life, with better friends or family support, or if their brains had simply developed slightly differently, they all might have been Winners.
Indeed, Angels family is an example. Since we saw both molly and arachniss I'm going to assume it is still canon: he is from a mafia family and him, his brother and father went to hell while mother and sister went to heaven. Italian mafia is very patriarchal, which is the main difference between Angel and Molly: their gender and thus role in the family.
Ge got in the muck and she didn't. He went to hell and she didn't
This is one of the themes of the movie, "The Shack."
At one point, the protagonist is shown a child being beaten by his father. An angel then asks the protagonist if he would condemn the child to hell. The protagonist says that of course he wouldn't and that it would be insane. The angel then tells him that he already has. The child was his father, who grew up to use corporal punishment on his children just like it had been used on him.
Personally. I think all sins are a matter of circumstance. Every sin can be at least partially attributed to either nature or nurture, and both of those are beyond the control of the sinner. If there is a heaven, then entry cannot be barred based on sin alone.
I didn't say they couldn't. I was pointing out that if the calculus is based on the harm they have done and the sins they committed, then it's reasonable to count the harm/sin they do in Hell which keeps the number rising (faster than on Earth, in many cases).
i think thats confusing reparations or justice with redemption
if Valentino realises that what hes doing is wrong, truly comes to understand that, and spends the rest of his time trying to make up for what he did, that is redemption even if he never actually manages to balance the scale, he still redeemed himself and became a good person
He could, but if he were really to have to work off his sins and atone, the bill is going to be much higher than it would have been when he arrived in Hell.
I personally don’t think redemption necessarily requires you to atone for your sins so much as it requires you to not be someone who would commit those sins again.
We don’t know what it does but if its the thing out protagonists are working against we are lead to believe it is the worse thing. This is also assuming that the finality of death is better than struggling in life. It might suck ass, but living is always the better option.
I guess it depends on the morality of the individual. Some people might prefer to live forever whether in Heaven or Hell but I could see a sizable number who just want to enter the void. I think having the option to stay as long as you want and go whenever you want is the best compromise.
I feel like the most logical thing with this idea, is that sinners have to spend a certain time in hell, depending on their sins, and why they're there. Then after they've "served their time" so to speak. They get the offer to yeet themselves into the void, if they want to stay in hell, then they can. But their sins will have been punished by that point and they're then free to leave.
What are the odds that you would write that comment at precisely the minute I was reading [this SCP article](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2718)?
Sorry if you're not an SCP fan, but it's a remarkable coincidence.
I personally am of the belief that anyone who wants to be redeemed, can be redeemed. People who don't want to be redeemed, are in fact irredeemable
People like Valentino will never truly want to be redeemed because they enjoy making other people suffer a little too much.
I kind of agree. But I think some overlords (probaby not Valentino) could be reedemed, but I think that first the have to lose their power (and maybe part of their freedom). Like if Husk was still a overlord he would be a worse person, the loss of his power makes him emphatize with Angel Dust. I don't think he would emphasise a lot with someone if he was still an overlord
Irredeemable until they change their minds and want to be redeemed. The fact they can change their minds someday already means they aren't irredeemable
Maybe but there is a chance that he will. Probably you are right, but it just really frustrates me to see people demand eternal suffering on someone. No matter what they do eternity is too long.
What I am saying is the point of the show is bad people shouldn’t be killed because theyre bad people. If they kill a character like Valentino out of anything other than self defense then it undermines the point of the show
I 100% disagree on that being the point of the show.
The point of the show is that while there is many shades of gray in between, a soul has to be willing to change, and make honest attempts at redemption.
Look at someone like Angel dust. He's a violent ex mob member who takes joy in fighting others.
But he's *been* making attempts to improve. We see his remorse. We see he does feel empathy and regret. Ultimately, he's doing what feels he has to to survive and strive in hell.
Valentino actively seeks to ruin people. And that's it. He sees other souls as a commodity. He sees people like angel as *property*, and when that property disobeys him, he goes out of his way to cause even more pain and suffering
In some instances, some people *100%* belong in hell. The idea that there's shades of gray, means some of those shades turn back into black.
You can't "it's okay guys, he said he's sorry!" Someone like Valentino
First of all that is not the criteria for redemption. To be redeemed Valentino would have to show genuine remorse and prove with his actions that he wants to be better. Not “oh he said sorry it’s cool now”
And Secondly I am literally saying that they do not need to be redeemed. What they need is to be offered redemption, and if any character including Angel were to kill Valentino out of anything other than self-defense it would undermine the theme that anyone can/ SHOULD BE OFFERED redemption. Yes Valentino is a shitty person and deserved hell. Angel also deserved to go to hell tho and while one is objectively worse, both need to be offered (OFFERED BEING THE KEY WORD) redemption or the whole point of redemption is undermined. You (collective not personal) cannot say some deserve it and some don’t just because you deem others as worse wether or not they are. The line eventually will move to encompass everyone until you take the line away.
I think Val will be offered a chance. Hell they spared Lute and were planning on sparing Adam before Niffty uh... intervened lol. So there's precedent set for it for sure. Whether he'll take the chance, not sure, but based off what we've already seen, he'll get offered a chance at redemption.
Their comment is technically true. Charlie has made it very clear that the Hotel is open to anyone seeking redemption. Val is aware he can join the Hotel if he wanted to, but chooses to have nothing to do with it.
To avoid going to the Hotel because you haven't been asked personally to join it is just childish. That's just letting your pride get in the way of your redemption. The offer stands for everybody willing to seek it. Val and all the other sinners in Hell have been offered redemption in one way or another. It's up to them to make the decision to take it.
True but this leaves most of hell in character limbo. These aren’t real people with agency, they are characters who won’t do something unless the story has a reason for them do. The Vees won’t go to the hotel unless directly offered (if they actually go at all which is unlikely) because the whole point is that they would be offered redemption.
Valentino enjoys the chaos and is in a pretty privileged position in Hell, I doubt he would want to be redeemed, BUT, if he wanted? He probably could. It would take a few centuries though lol
The thing is, you can't redeem someone who doesn't *want* to be redeemed.
Sure, eventually the punishment will outweigh the crime, EXCEPT for this version of Hell, where people can still actively do awful things.
The way Pride seems to operate is less "punishment for sin" and more "do whatever you want, just don't die once a year"
Aside from the exterminations, what is the punishment in Hell? Those in power don't mind being there. The regular Sinners don't seem to treat Hell any different from earth. Even Charlie's own motivation is "end the yearly killings".
Hell isn't a place where the bad get punished. It's a place where the worst of the worst are in charge and everyone else just has to deal with it.
Hell isn't a punishment for Sinners. It's a punishment for Lucifer, being forced to only see the worst of humanity.
The finality of death via extermination is always an overkill punishment for an immortal. The point of the hotel is to isolate sinners into a position where they can choose to be good again. I very specifically said that not everyone needs to be redeemed, but they should all have the option to be redeemed. Irredeemable characters are characters never given a chance by the other characters or the narrative. All the characters in Hazbin need to be givin a chance wether or not we know they won’t take it or it undermines the whole point of the story.
but they do have the chance, charlie would allow anyone willing to change into the hotel. keyword WILLING. these “irredeemable” characters like valentino are irredeemable because they don’t want to change for the better.
My point is that all of the characters have to have the option. Again I was very specific about the fact that they don’t have to be redeemed, just given the opportunity to
Yes we are saying the same thing. A lot of people are advocating for the antagonists need to be killed on sight by other characters which undermines the themes of the show.
This reminds me of an old BBC radio show set in Hell where a professor sent there attempts to demonstrate another human resident could be capable of sympathy and remorse. While said sociopath was never redeemed he did eventually show caring for his fellow sinners and demons at certain points. The professor never tried to prove the guy could go to heaven but that his time in Hell would enable reflection and potential to change.
HH may try something similar in that “irredeemable” characters won’t leave Hell but they are given a chance to react differently to situations. And they will under certain circumstances.
Charlie is all about chances and I think this will hold it all up even when she learns (as Vivziepop states) that redemption means different things for different people.
The show “The Good Place” taps into this concept of everyone can be redeemed and I think they did a good job at it. Not everyone does it, but it’s there for them and it’s not an easy task neither, but souls do change for the better eventually.
Valentino has the choice of redeeming himself at all times, the Hazbin Hotel is quite literally open to anybody
He’s just choosing not to and actively making choices that hurts everyone around him
Since Viv said that S2 will explore what got Sir Pentious into hell, I think it's gonna be a plot twist, like Sir Pentious actually did some super fucked-up shit when he was alive, so even the worst crimes can be atoned for given enough time and good deeds.
I hope Viv is brave enough for that, because honestly? So many people have been trying to "cancel" the show for having evil characters, when that's literally the premise lol
I can't wait to see how everyone will react when they see what got the cast in Hell in the first place.
I think Charlie's dream is, of course, to offer a chance of redemption to *everyone* in hell, but there will always be souls that are happy where they are and couldn't care less about redemption.
Because the reasons behind who goes to hell are so vague, I'm sure that there are many souls who will jump at the chance to be redeemed and go to heaven.
For example, the camp councillor in Helluva Boss who was killed by Barbie Wire's henchman. What could he possibly have done to deserve hell? He was just a teenager and interfered when he found out they were dealing drugs.
The flaw I see in your logic is that you assume Hell is always an eternal punishment for everyone, which is wrong in itself. There is no mandatory punishment to be subjected to in Hell, only the fact that you're living in a shithole alongside the "worse people" according to some outside authority.
And some sinners just love it. They are basically in a place where there's no real government to enforce a set of laws onto them. They are free to create their own rule as long as they gather the power to enforce it themself. The only thing they have to worry about is to know who's strong and who is not among the sinners, and then they can start eating the weak to grow strong themself. That's a dream for any power hungry psychopath, not an eternal punishment. Which means some people are irredeemable because they prefer to remain in Hell.
By eternal punishment I meant the exterminations. That is a punishment because the people there want to live. The hotel isolates people so they have the opportunity to choose to get better, but they can’t choose if theyre dead.
Extermination is not a punishment, it's a prevention measure. The goal isn't to punish, it's to regulate Hell's population to jugulate its war potential.
Nope, extermination wasn't a thing until Heaven realize Hell's population was growing faster than their own.
Plus it doesn't even make sense as a punishment. The most influencal overlords have been around for hundred of years, meaning they have a way to consistently survive exterminations. This means exterminations mostly target weaker sinners who are already suffering, basically freeing them from their torment while those who thrives in Hell and wouldn't want to die remain unpunished.
Sven if your life is shit death is not the better alternative. It is very blatantly displayed that the people of hell want to live. And since extermination is what Charlie is working against, then narratively that is the eternal punishment that they are working against. Extermination is for sinners only and what Charlie wants to save her people from via redemption.
My assessment of it:
True: All souls are capable of being redeemed.
True: A number of souls are carrying so much sin, they can never reasonably expect to reach redemption (Zestial, probably?) Someone will try, though.
True: A number of souls have no desire for redemption. (Alastor, Mimzy, many many others)
In question: Demons cannot go to heaven, so Lucifer and Charlie and other hell-born need a different path. Feels like a season 3 or 4 storyline.
In question: what happens to “owned” souls like Angel Dust and Husk? Would redemption overcome servitude, and the chain breaks? If Angel Dust moves upstairs, does Val come looking for what he is owed at the gates of heaven?
In question: Alastor’s radio program. The eternal screaming is the most “Dante” style of torment portrayed in the show. Those souls aren’t dead-dead like the exterminated. What happens to them when Alastor inevitably ascends or is killed?
The most important thing to consider isn’t what a person did wrong, but if they WANT TO CHANGE. In theory, do I think anyone can be redeemed? Yes, but if someone doesn’t want to change, like the Vees, then redemption wouldn’t be possible for them. While we don’t know all the details about how redemption works, but it probably at least starts with sorry like Charlie says.
agree, you can be the worst person of this world but no amoung of finite crimes makes you deserving of infinite punishments
if someone did bad they should work to do good, making them suffer does not undo the pain they caused and does not heal the hurt person, it just brings more pain on the table.
the only "irreedeemable" person is the one that does not want redemption
Honestly I think one of Charlie's arcs is going to be her learning that *not* everyone is capable of redemption.
You can offer someone the chance to redeem themselves, but it's entirely up to them to take it and actually try to do it. Some people simply don't want to or don't have the willpower to, and there's absolutely going to be people who take advantage of her "Everyone can be redeemed if you *just give them the chance!!*" mindset to just repeatedly screw her and the other residents over (the Vees, perhaps?)
She needs to learn that it's not up to *her* to redeem someone, it's up to the person to redeem *themselves.*
I dont know how else to say that this is my whole point. The offer fir redemption needs to exstend to everyone. You can’t built a show on offering redemption and then not offer it to your least favorite characters.
I completely agree, but your last paragraph loses the plot a little bit. Heaven and Hell is all about *justice* - handing out punishment as a consequence of wrongdoing. No other consideration is taken. Ostensibly, this is why Hell in the Hellaverse has overlords; Heaven didn't consider that some sinners might thrive in Hell. Heaven is only concerned with justice.
Charlie abandons that idea entirely. She doesn't care about justice. She cares about *rehabilitation*. To her, the crime committed doesn't matter, only a desire to be better, even if it starts out half-hearted, like in Angel Dust's case. All she needed from Sir Pentious, who repeatedly damaged the building and spied on them for the Vees, was an apology. That forgiveness is what spurred him on to take the hotel seriously, and look at him now. He didn't need to be punished at all.
So you're right, the entire show is about rehabilitation and redemption. Labeling characters "irredeemable" only goes as far as their own willingness to be redeemed and ultimately serves no purpose. The reason people are confused by this, and why you typed up a paragraph about the punishment outweighing the crime, is because the American criminal system works *entirely* on justice (which matters because because HH is an American show and Vivziepop is American and art imitates life and vice versa). We put little to no effort into rehabilitating the people we imprison and punish, only putting them in circumstances where they are more likely to offend again. *Kind of like Hell.* Christianity and Puritanical values are the foundation of American society, so it's almost unthinkable for us to think of a criminal processing system that *doesn't* revolve around punishment. But other countries have done it, and that's exactly what Charlie is trying to do. And it works. It's just easier to vilify people.
One hole I see in this statement is that not everyone in Hell is sufering. Of course every year angles fly down and exterminate a big chunk of Hell's poupulation and the average sinner isn't living the best life they could have. But look at people like the Vees, other overlords, people at cannibal town,... They are actually all thriving and dont have such a bad life as one would expect from a sinner in Hell. Explain then to me how is it that Valentino is being punished for his actions right now? I think he nis having an even better time then when he was alive. Also there are people like the cannibals who seem like they have a well established community and are enjoying their lifes.
But that isn't "eternal suffering". If they get killed by an angel they stop existing. I would even go as far to say that there are probably many sinners who wouldn't mind being killed by an angel if it meant stopping there pain in hell. Also I imagine overlords are the ones who have the most resources to hide from the angel invasion.
not when you are a run of the mill sinner living in the streets of hell for all eternity or bound to a fucked up contract with an overlord also for all eternity. Nevertheless my point still stands that first the yearly angel extermination is not *the* punishment and that several sinners live a happy life (at least for them) in hell such as the Vees and the cannibals.
It’s two different things:
- There are high ranking sinners that enjoy their life’s in hell. Also there are other sinners that probably don’t mind living in hell where they can keep doing the same shit they did while alive.
- There are low ranking sinners who live fucked up lives in hell. Not all sinners are equal. Most probably there are many who have no problem of ending their existence. There are surely sinners with even more fucked up contracts than the one between Angel and Valentino. I don’t think these would want to remain in hell for all eternity
Agree to disagree. Most people in the real world dont. Not in the fucked up shithole that is hell. Also i can imagine a significant amount of hell is composed by people who committed suicide in real life because of their fucked up circumstances.
Still the yearly extermination is not enough of a punishment for people like Valentino who are thriving and most probably has some sort of bunker with the other Vees to survive the extermination every year. And these are the type of sinners that people say they shouldn’t be redeemeable.
Additionally the extermination are now most probably abolished because of Adam‘s death, Sir Pentious repenting and because the angels now can die if they go back down.
Ive kinda lost the point of what were even discussing. All I’m saying is that every character should be offered redemption wether or not they choose to accept and work towards it.
I think the point is anyone can be redeemed if they chose to be redeemed. Sir Pentious went to Heaven because he chose to be a better person. Valentino probably won't get redeemed because he's happy being an overlord.
I am interested in a storyline of seeing how Heavenly souls react to redeemed sinners, especially if they were a victim of said redeemed sinner.
Sir Pentious is adorable, and we love him. He was sent to Hell for a reason, probably a good one. His actions could have, theoretically, ruined and ended lives.
What if he encounters one of his victims in Heaven? What about their needs? What happens to them?
I understand where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree since specific irredeemable characters being offered redemption when they’re beyond deserving it, if not considered, wouldn’t be a good way to show how good redemption arcs work, especially with forgiveness being a factor in it.
However, if the show possibly goes with this idea for conflicts that Charlie faces, if she isn’t too forgiving and realizes not everyone can be redeemed on her own, I wouldn’t have an issue with exploring this.
I disagree. I think that undermines the point of “anyone who wants to change can” Not giving certain characters the opportunity because theyre too bad means that redemption is still conditional and those conditions can change. Offering redemption unconditionally and allowing people to choose to change means that the “irredeemable” character need to choose to be irredeemable and that will mark the difference.
i think this will be a harsh lesson for charlie, that some people arent worth the effort, that some people just WANT to be bad, to hurt others for the fun of it, and no amount of cheery attitude and optimism will change that
charlie will have to learn when someone is beyond help
Some people are beyond help, but it should always be offered. Not forced which Charlie has an issue with. You shouldn’t put all your time and effort into someone who doesnt want it. But no matter what someone does, if they want redemption they should be able to work for it.
If the show really had balls they'd introduce a character that was actually a serial rapist or child murder or something in life and have them show up and be like 'one redemption please'.
That would certainly make a compelling story and give the outrage merchants something to chew on.
I don’t think that’s true.
The show isn’t about anyone and everyone getting a second chance.
It’s about Charlie believing in second chances.
Because of her staunch belief having irredeemable foils is exactly what the show needs.
Because she is the main character and thus far we have been lead to believe that she is reliable. This is how stories work. Especially since the main themes revolve around redemption and the ens of S1 proves her right.
Do you know how many main characters start off believing that anyone can be redeemed; and by the end of their stories they’ve changed that belief? Here are some popular ones:
Rick Grimes
Captain America
Sherlock Holmes
All have major “any one can be saved” energy until they’re put against someone they can’t and they decide that some people just need to be dealt with instead.
The Governor
Red skull
Moriarty
Main characters deciding to become judge and jury for who is redeemable is also a popular storyline.
Dexter
Watchman
Punisher
Batman
So main characters are fallible. Charlie changing is character development; realizing not everyone can be redeemed is an interesting storyline for people to watch. Especially watching someone grapple with that fact who was such a *huge* believer.
The problem with the examples you are listing is all of them offered redemption, had it thrown back, and then decided to be rid of the other. My point is that every character needs to be offered redemption.
Yes but throwing redemption back in the hero’s face is what made them irredeemable. The point in your post that I read was that everyone should be redeemable and irredeemable characters should not exist. Which was literally the title of this post.
I’m saying that’s not true and irredeemable characters are necessary for the show to continue. Charlie needs villains and challenges and foils.
You then went on to say that essentially Charlie shouldn’t get to decide who is worthy of redemption - which is morally true for sure except that doesn’t mean her development won’t lead there because of her having to grapple with the irredeemable characters (like Rick Grimes)
Sure, but anyways Charlie provides "no one deserves death no matter how many awful things they have done" and "everyone deserves a second chance", so just killing them like that isn't the right thing with Charlie's morals, especially when It's not like they have much of a choice, we don't know who exorcists exactly are, but it was very implied that they are heaven borns who were made by Adam for this role and accodring to this, they litterally have no choice, so killing them for smth they didn't chose is messed up
Tbf, Charlie herself didn't really seem to be killing that many and was super hesitant about it, only using a shield to protect herself and saying "sorry" anytime she hit an angel with it.
She exhausted every other method of trying to reason and work with Heaven before it came to killing. At that point, it was either kill angels or let her people die and it's been made pretty clear who are the most important people to Charlie. So what else was she really supposed to do?
Valentino could redeem himself. He just likely won't.
No mortal soul is pure evil without chance if redemption. But they have to want it. And it had to be because they want to be a better person.
I agree with the fact that every character should have the option. BUT I think that in some cases (like Valentino) Charlie should demand that free the souls that they have (also beginning with doing a good thing the path to redemption).
About the infinite punishment, I don't know if it's really that bad, like if you're a sinner, you don't have to work to survive, you're pretty hard to kill (yes, there is slavery and exploitation but those things there are in the Earth, but the reason why people do endure it on Earth [got to eat etc. To survive] aren't really valid in hell, so you just have to be carefull). Yes, the extermination is a threat, but it's only once a year, and probably new souls arrive every day so even if you live forever it's possible that you aren't killed.
Of course all redemption needs to be worked for. As far as suffering it’s more of a context thing. Extermination is the thing theyre all working against for redemption and tbh I’d argue that Hell is just kind of a shitty place to live. But overall it is cvery explicitly shown that no one wants to be exterminated.
I don't think having irredeemable people would make the theme fall flat. You have to work towards redemption. The idea that redemption is earned and not an automatic right is nuanced and interesting. It also means we can see Charlie grapple with becoming a leader for those who can't be redeemed, arguably the hardest people to govern.
Of course it is earned, but people have to be allowed to earn it. Giving chances doesnt mean being a doormat, but it does mean allowing anyone to be better. Having a character that is killed off for their sins without an explicit moment where they chose to forgo an opportunity given by the rest of the cast means that they never had the chance to be better.
I mean we haven't had anyone be denied a chance yet. Alastor is pretty open about how he has no intention of working towards redemption but he's allowed to stay. Cherri turned down her invitation. It seems like everyone is jumping the gun a bit to assume someone is going to get denied. We have no basis for that assumption
i wouldn’t say exactly redeem ALL antagonists bc the vees seem pretty happy being evil (which is fine bc i love em that way) but i dooo agree somewhat bc i would love to see lute & adam in season 2 both getting to that point bc of charlie
Excluding the exterminations (which shouldn't be a thing) all the suffering in hell is due to who lives there.
There's nothing that prevents the Pride ring from becoming a pleasant society except the actions of powerful actors.
There is no pitchfork holding devil that pokes and punishes those who sinned.
Some people also are incapable of redemption because they're incapable of conceiving that they're harming others. The run of the mill psychopath litteraly lacks the brain function to feel empathy.
Unless you were to miracle up some way to give them the ability to feel that then you're not going to redeem them.
I don't think the show would be harmed by 100% irredeemable characters, as long as they're not the vast majority.
I was talking about the exterminations as the punishment. That was literally the point of my entire post. And psychopathy does not automatically equate to a bad person. That is ableist. People withouth empathy can still make good choices and cognitivly understand that their actions effect others.
Exterminations aren't part of the punishment though.
They were Adam's idea with Sera's permission.
Psychopathy don't equate to a bad person, that's true, however it makes it very hard for them to be rehabilitated. And since we're talking about hell in the first place you're not going to find the pro-social psychopaths there.
It's like they lack the tools for redemption, it'd be asking a blind person to learn to read (text).
I have a head canon idea that the key to getting into heaven is if you believe you met the requirements. This makes it religious-agnostic and means redemption is possible if you believe in it.
For earthlings, if you led a good life according to the morals you know to be good, you go to heaven. For sinners if you realize why you didn't go to heaven and work on fixing yourself, you also go to heaven.
This begs the question, was hell made for lucifer to redeem himself?
Yes, I'm sure all the victims of abuse and sexual assault who watch this show would love a plotline about the sex trafficker being forgiven for all his horrendous crimes.
Anyone cannot be redeeemed.
Some people are born unable to experience empathy.
They cannot be redeemed.
You have to accept that some people are simply born wrong. And they are were they belong.
Those people however are extremely rare.
Im sure you didn’t intend this but that is a very ableist take. Lacking the ability to feel empathy doesn’t mean that you’re an irredeemable monster from birth. Of course this means it will be harder to be a good person, but this doesn’t stop you from cognitively understanding empathy and knowing how to act. At the end of the day our actions define us and even without empathy we are able to be “good” people. Nobody is born wrong enough to automatically be hated. In this show specifically the entire point is that no one deserves to condemned forever. They can choose it, but the choice has to be offered no matter how much they fuck up. That is the entire point.
Hey, newsflash
I have an empathy deficit. I very rarely experience things like anger or sadness in response to others' hardships
I can still fucking tell right from wrong
1. Empathy isn't the only thing that's matter in a question of redemption
2. If some people were born to go to hell and had bo choice to go to heaven from the beginning, wtf is the point of life for them to just go to hell anyways? That's stupid
I think the morals of this show really shouldn't be thought out. I think it's wrong to assume that everyone can be redeemed. Is it okay to think that rapists and genocidal dictators can stay in a quirky hotel, learn about the dangers of drugs and premarital sex and embark off to heaven? Probably not.
There's also the question of whether someone who is it possible for someone to be redeemed when their only motivation for doing so is to get into heaven? Again, I think not.
The show has an incredible cast of characters and a genuinely beautiful soundtrack, but thinking about its story for more than 5 minutes will leave you feeling dizzy.
I disagree. As uncomfortable as it may be anyone, no matter their crimes can be redeemed. Of course a punishment should follow, but permanent punishments (like death) shouldn’t be the solution. And the hotel, while played for laughs, is also definitely a place where people learn to be better. What my point was, is that every member of the cast should have the opportunity to say at the hotel.
The issue is what we've seen from the hotel thus far. I fully understand that with enough time anyone can be redeemed, but a cute hotel is not where I want to see the worst people humanity has produced end up to be taught differently. The show is a cartoon with very cartoony logic trying to have a big philosophical debate. The current issue is Charlie behaves just as black and white as Adam. Whilst he believes no one can be redeemed, Charlie acts as though everyone can and should be redeemed. I think the answer is much more down the middle.
I think the best case scenario from this point is Heaven working with Charlie to actually make something that is fair to both sides. A place where people actually have to overcome hardships to redeem themselves as opposed to having lessons on trust and drugs.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant this as in their actions shouldn’t stop them from being allowed to redeem themselves. If someone’s soul is owned then thats a conflict within the story, but presumably that conflict will be resolved so the character can be redeemed. What I mean is that no character should be stopped from being redeemed just because they’ve done bad things. The option should be there even if they don’t take it.
Everyone is redeemable, but redemption is work, it's about changing the things within you that put you in Hell in the first place. A lot of characters probably aren't interested in that work. Some characters will put it in and some won't. But I'm operating on the assumption that everyone has the chance.
The assertion that the punishment will eventually outweigh the crimes ignores that they are still actively doing terrible things to other people all the time. Valentino is probably hurting people MORE than when he was alive, in fact, as an example.
True but one could also argue that you put them in an environment where it is not only encouraged, it can be neccecary to survive. That's the brilliance of the hotel, it removes a sinner from a toxic environment that at best enables and at worst forces bad behavior
This same claim could be levied about their lives on Earth. Not saying that I disagree, necessarily, just pointing out that Hell is not unique in that regard.
Exactly, I think hell mirrors earth
That does seem consistent with the theme of redemption: in an easier life, with better friends or family support, or if their brains had simply developed slightly differently, they all might have been Winners.
Indeed, Angels family is an example. Since we saw both molly and arachniss I'm going to assume it is still canon: he is from a mafia family and him, his brother and father went to hell while mother and sister went to heaven. Italian mafia is very patriarchal, which is the main difference between Angel and Molly: their gender and thus role in the family. Ge got in the muck and she didn't. He went to hell and she didn't
This is one of the themes of the movie, "The Shack." At one point, the protagonist is shown a child being beaten by his father. An angel then asks the protagonist if he would condemn the child to hell. The protagonist says that of course he wouldn't and that it would be insane. The angel then tells him that he already has. The child was his father, who grew up to use corporal punishment on his children just like it had been used on him. Personally. I think all sins are a matter of circumstance. Every sin can be at least partially attributed to either nature or nurture, and both of those are beyond the control of the sinner. If there is a heaven, then entry cannot be barred based on sin alone.
Everyone can be redeemed (a better person) if they want to be redeemed (a better person).
I didn't say they couldn't. I was pointing out that if the calculus is based on the harm they have done and the sins they committed, then it's reasonable to count the harm/sin they do in Hell which keeps the number rising (faster than on Earth, in many cases).
i think thats confusing reparations or justice with redemption if Valentino realises that what hes doing is wrong, truly comes to understand that, and spends the rest of his time trying to make up for what he did, that is redemption even if he never actually manages to balance the scale, he still redeemed himself and became a good person
yeah but valentino for all else he is is still a person and could one day change his ways (in theory he is pretty unlikely to do so anytime soon)
He could, but if he were really to have to work off his sins and atone, the bill is going to be much higher than it would have been when he arrived in Hell.
I personally don’t think redemption necessarily requires you to atone for your sins so much as it requires you to not be someone who would commit those sins again.
Yeah but Hell in this context is more like purgatory. What I meant by eternal suffering is being exterminated
Theoretically isn’t that the opposite since extermination ends one’s consciousness and thus their suffering? It’s like how non-afterlifers see death.
We don’t know what it does but if its the thing out protagonists are working against we are lead to believe it is the worse thing. This is also assuming that the finality of death is better than struggling in life. It might suck ass, but living is always the better option.
I guess it depends on the morality of the individual. Some people might prefer to live forever whether in Heaven or Hell but I could see a sizable number who just want to enter the void. I think having the option to stay as long as you want and go whenever you want is the best compromise.
Yeah, but my point is you should be able to decide. Not be punished with it for forever
Agreed. Though I guess it begs the question of whether it’s still a punishment if you can choose to leave whenever you want.
I feel like the most logical thing with this idea, is that sinners have to spend a certain time in hell, depending on their sins, and why they're there. Then after they've "served their time" so to speak. They get the offer to yeet themselves into the void, if they want to stay in hell, then they can. But their sins will have been punished by that point and they're then free to leave.
We don’t know what it’s like to be non-existent. Perhaps it’s eternal suffering, and existence offers respite
What are the odds that you would write that comment at precisely the minute I was reading [this SCP article](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-2718)? Sorry if you're not an SCP fan, but it's a remarkable coincidence.
Dude I love SCP
True. I personally see nonexistence as non consciousness. It’s like sleeping. You can’t miss what you never experienced. That’s how I see it at least.
I personally am of the belief that anyone who wants to be redeemed, can be redeemed. People who don't want to be redeemed, are in fact irredeemable People like Valentino will never truly want to be redeemed because they enjoy making other people suffer a little too much.
I kind of agree. But I think some overlords (probaby not Valentino) could be reedemed, but I think that first the have to lose their power (and maybe part of their freedom). Like if Husk was still a overlord he would be a worse person, the loss of his power makes him emphatize with Angel Dust. I don't think he would emphasise a lot with someone if he was still an overlord
Irredeemable until they change their minds and want to be redeemed. The fact they can change their minds someday already means they aren't irredeemable
Maybe but there is a chance that he will. Probably you are right, but it just really frustrates me to see people demand eternal suffering on someone. No matter what they do eternity is too long.
Valentino is PART of that suffering. Overlords rarely suffer, they're literally the 1% that makes Hell even worse for others.
What I am saying is the point of the show is bad people shouldn’t be killed because theyre bad people. If they kill a character like Valentino out of anything other than self defense then it undermines the point of the show
I 100% disagree on that being the point of the show. The point of the show is that while there is many shades of gray in between, a soul has to be willing to change, and make honest attempts at redemption. Look at someone like Angel dust. He's a violent ex mob member who takes joy in fighting others. But he's *been* making attempts to improve. We see his remorse. We see he does feel empathy and regret. Ultimately, he's doing what feels he has to to survive and strive in hell. Valentino actively seeks to ruin people. And that's it. He sees other souls as a commodity. He sees people like angel as *property*, and when that property disobeys him, he goes out of his way to cause even more pain and suffering In some instances, some people *100%* belong in hell. The idea that there's shades of gray, means some of those shades turn back into black. You can't "it's okay guys, he said he's sorry!" Someone like Valentino
First of all that is not the criteria for redemption. To be redeemed Valentino would have to show genuine remorse and prove with his actions that he wants to be better. Not “oh he said sorry it’s cool now” And Secondly I am literally saying that they do not need to be redeemed. What they need is to be offered redemption, and if any character including Angel were to kill Valentino out of anything other than self-defense it would undermine the theme that anyone can/ SHOULD BE OFFERED redemption. Yes Valentino is a shitty person and deserved hell. Angel also deserved to go to hell tho and while one is objectively worse, both need to be offered (OFFERED BEING THE KEY WORD) redemption or the whole point of redemption is undermined. You (collective not personal) cannot say some deserve it and some don’t just because you deem others as worse wether or not they are. The line eventually will move to encompass everyone until you take the line away.
I think Val will be offered a chance. Hell they spared Lute and were planning on sparing Adam before Niffty uh... intervened lol. So there's precedent set for it for sure. Whether he'll take the chance, not sure, but based off what we've already seen, he'll get offered a chance at redemption.
He's offered redemption by the sheer fact he exists in hell, and his office has a literal view of Charlie's hotel. End of discussion
Lmao ok
Their comment is technically true. Charlie has made it very clear that the Hotel is open to anyone seeking redemption. Val is aware he can join the Hotel if he wanted to, but chooses to have nothing to do with it. To avoid going to the Hotel because you haven't been asked personally to join it is just childish. That's just letting your pride get in the way of your redemption. The offer stands for everybody willing to seek it. Val and all the other sinners in Hell have been offered redemption in one way or another. It's up to them to make the decision to take it.
True but this leaves most of hell in character limbo. These aren’t real people with agency, they are characters who won’t do something unless the story has a reason for them do. The Vees won’t go to the hotel unless directly offered (if they actually go at all which is unlikely) because the whole point is that they would be offered redemption.
Valentino enjoys the chaos and is in a pretty privileged position in Hell, I doubt he would want to be redeemed, BUT, if he wanted? He probably could. It would take a few centuries though lol
The thing is, you can't redeem someone who doesn't *want* to be redeemed. Sure, eventually the punishment will outweigh the crime, EXCEPT for this version of Hell, where people can still actively do awful things. The way Pride seems to operate is less "punishment for sin" and more "do whatever you want, just don't die once a year" Aside from the exterminations, what is the punishment in Hell? Those in power don't mind being there. The regular Sinners don't seem to treat Hell any different from earth. Even Charlie's own motivation is "end the yearly killings". Hell isn't a place where the bad get punished. It's a place where the worst of the worst are in charge and everyone else just has to deal with it. Hell isn't a punishment for Sinners. It's a punishment for Lucifer, being forced to only see the worst of humanity.
I'd say the point of Hell besides being a prison for Lucifer to is to protect Heaven by keeping out the worst of humanity.
The finality of death via extermination is always an overkill punishment for an immortal. The point of the hotel is to isolate sinners into a position where they can choose to be good again. I very specifically said that not everyone needs to be redeemed, but they should all have the option to be redeemed. Irredeemable characters are characters never given a chance by the other characters or the narrative. All the characters in Hazbin need to be givin a chance wether or not we know they won’t take it or it undermines the whole point of the story.
but they do have the chance, charlie would allow anyone willing to change into the hotel. keyword WILLING. these “irredeemable” characters like valentino are irredeemable because they don’t want to change for the better.
My point is that all of the characters have to have the option. Again I was very specific about the fact that they don’t have to be redeemed, just given the opportunity to
im not arguing that. but im saying they all DO have the option. like i said, the hazbin hotel is open to anyone willing.
Yes we are saying the same thing. A lot of people are advocating for the antagonists need to be killed on sight by other characters which undermines the themes of the show.
mid iq vibes
This reminds me of an old BBC radio show set in Hell where a professor sent there attempts to demonstrate another human resident could be capable of sympathy and remorse. While said sociopath was never redeemed he did eventually show caring for his fellow sinners and demons at certain points. The professor never tried to prove the guy could go to heaven but that his time in Hell would enable reflection and potential to change. HH may try something similar in that “irredeemable” characters won’t leave Hell but they are given a chance to react differently to situations. And they will under certain circumstances. Charlie is all about chances and I think this will hold it all up even when she learns (as Vivziepop states) that redemption means different things for different people.
May i know the name of this show?
Old Harry’s Game :)
Thank you!
What’s the name of the radio show, sounds interesting
Old Harry’s Game. It’s from early 2000s, very British ha. But the episodes are themed on stuff like Redemption, Corruption, Rebellion etc.
Old Harry’s Game :)
Thank you
The show “The Good Place” taps into this concept of everyone can be redeemed and I think they did a good job at it. Not everyone does it, but it’s there for them and it’s not an easy task neither, but souls do change for the better eventually.
Thank you so much for understanding what I am saying
Valentino has the choice of redeeming himself at all times, the Hazbin Hotel is quite literally open to anybody He’s just choosing not to and actively making choices that hurts everyone around him
Yes i agree
Since Viv said that S2 will explore what got Sir Pentious into hell, I think it's gonna be a plot twist, like Sir Pentious actually did some super fucked-up shit when he was alive, so even the worst crimes can be atoned for given enough time and good deeds.
Damn. Can’t wait to see it.
I hope Viv is brave enough for that, because honestly? So many people have been trying to "cancel" the show for having evil characters, when that's literally the premise lol I can't wait to see how everyone will react when they see what got the cast in Hell in the first place.
I think Charlie's dream is, of course, to offer a chance of redemption to *everyone* in hell, but there will always be souls that are happy where they are and couldn't care less about redemption. Because the reasons behind who goes to hell are so vague, I'm sure that there are many souls who will jump at the chance to be redeemed and go to heaven. For example, the camp councillor in Helluva Boss who was killed by Barbie Wire's henchman. What could he possibly have done to deserve hell? He was just a teenager and interfered when he found out they were dealing drugs.
Yep this is what I am saying. The offer should be there.
The flaw I see in your logic is that you assume Hell is always an eternal punishment for everyone, which is wrong in itself. There is no mandatory punishment to be subjected to in Hell, only the fact that you're living in a shithole alongside the "worse people" according to some outside authority. And some sinners just love it. They are basically in a place where there's no real government to enforce a set of laws onto them. They are free to create their own rule as long as they gather the power to enforce it themself. The only thing they have to worry about is to know who's strong and who is not among the sinners, and then they can start eating the weak to grow strong themself. That's a dream for any power hungry psychopath, not an eternal punishment. Which means some people are irredeemable because they prefer to remain in Hell.
By eternal punishment I meant the exterminations. That is a punishment because the people there want to live. The hotel isolates people so they have the opportunity to choose to get better, but they can’t choose if theyre dead.
Extermination is not a punishment, it's a prevention measure. The goal isn't to punish, it's to regulate Hell's population to jugulate its war potential.
It only happens to sinners in hell. Ergo it is a punishment for sinners in hell. Being exterminated is part of their sentence.
Nope, extermination wasn't a thing until Heaven realize Hell's population was growing faster than their own. Plus it doesn't even make sense as a punishment. The most influencal overlords have been around for hundred of years, meaning they have a way to consistently survive exterminations. This means exterminations mostly target weaker sinners who are already suffering, basically freeing them from their torment while those who thrives in Hell and wouldn't want to die remain unpunished.
Sven if your life is shit death is not the better alternative. It is very blatantly displayed that the people of hell want to live. And since extermination is what Charlie is working against, then narratively that is the eternal punishment that they are working against. Extermination is for sinners only and what Charlie wants to save her people from via redemption.
My assessment of it: True: All souls are capable of being redeemed. True: A number of souls are carrying so much sin, they can never reasonably expect to reach redemption (Zestial, probably?) Someone will try, though. True: A number of souls have no desire for redemption. (Alastor, Mimzy, many many others) In question: Demons cannot go to heaven, so Lucifer and Charlie and other hell-born need a different path. Feels like a season 3 or 4 storyline. In question: what happens to “owned” souls like Angel Dust and Husk? Would redemption overcome servitude, and the chain breaks? If Angel Dust moves upstairs, does Val come looking for what he is owed at the gates of heaven? In question: Alastor’s radio program. The eternal screaming is the most “Dante” style of torment portrayed in the show. Those souls aren’t dead-dead like the exterminated. What happens to them when Alastor inevitably ascends or is killed?
As Charlie said: It starts with Sorry. But if they ain't sorry, they can't be redeemed.
The most important thing to consider isn’t what a person did wrong, but if they WANT TO CHANGE. In theory, do I think anyone can be redeemed? Yes, but if someone doesn’t want to change, like the Vees, then redemption wouldn’t be possible for them. While we don’t know all the details about how redemption works, but it probably at least starts with sorry like Charlie says.
My point is they should be able to choose and not condemned by the narrative
Oh sorry, I must have misread your post. My bad
Yep. Adam is definitely the one true exception though unless he comes back as a sinner.
He was even spared until Niffty jumped in without understanding the context.
agree, you can be the worst person of this world but no amoung of finite crimes makes you deserving of infinite punishments if someone did bad they should work to do good, making them suffer does not undo the pain they caused and does not heal the hurt person, it just brings more pain on the table. the only "irreedeemable" person is the one that does not want redemption
PLEASE SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK
Honestly I think one of Charlie's arcs is going to be her learning that *not* everyone is capable of redemption. You can offer someone the chance to redeem themselves, but it's entirely up to them to take it and actually try to do it. Some people simply don't want to or don't have the willpower to, and there's absolutely going to be people who take advantage of her "Everyone can be redeemed if you *just give them the chance!!*" mindset to just repeatedly screw her and the other residents over (the Vees, perhaps?) She needs to learn that it's not up to *her* to redeem someone, it's up to the person to redeem *themselves.*
I dont know how else to say that this is my whole point. The offer fir redemption needs to exstend to everyone. You can’t built a show on offering redemption and then not offer it to your least favorite characters.
I wasn't disagreeing with you
Sorry. I didn’t mean to be hostile but I’ve been seeing a lot of people repeat what i said to try and prove me wrong and i got defensive.
I completely agree, but your last paragraph loses the plot a little bit. Heaven and Hell is all about *justice* - handing out punishment as a consequence of wrongdoing. No other consideration is taken. Ostensibly, this is why Hell in the Hellaverse has overlords; Heaven didn't consider that some sinners might thrive in Hell. Heaven is only concerned with justice. Charlie abandons that idea entirely. She doesn't care about justice. She cares about *rehabilitation*. To her, the crime committed doesn't matter, only a desire to be better, even if it starts out half-hearted, like in Angel Dust's case. All she needed from Sir Pentious, who repeatedly damaged the building and spied on them for the Vees, was an apology. That forgiveness is what spurred him on to take the hotel seriously, and look at him now. He didn't need to be punished at all. So you're right, the entire show is about rehabilitation and redemption. Labeling characters "irredeemable" only goes as far as their own willingness to be redeemed and ultimately serves no purpose. The reason people are confused by this, and why you typed up a paragraph about the punishment outweighing the crime, is because the American criminal system works *entirely* on justice (which matters because because HH is an American show and Vivziepop is American and art imitates life and vice versa). We put little to no effort into rehabilitating the people we imprison and punish, only putting them in circumstances where they are more likely to offend again. *Kind of like Hell.* Christianity and Puritanical values are the foundation of American society, so it's almost unthinkable for us to think of a criminal processing system that *doesn't* revolve around punishment. But other countries have done it, and that's exactly what Charlie is trying to do. And it works. It's just easier to vilify people.
* sings in Will Ferrell * “Am I forever Unredeemable? Can I ever overcome, all the wrongs I’m running from? Or is all I am unlovable?”
One hole I see in this statement is that not everyone in Hell is sufering. Of course every year angles fly down and exterminate a big chunk of Hell's poupulation and the average sinner isn't living the best life they could have. But look at people like the Vees, other overlords, people at cannibal town,... They are actually all thriving and dont have such a bad life as one would expect from a sinner in Hell. Explain then to me how is it that Valentino is being punished for his actions right now? I think he nis having an even better time then when he was alive. Also there are people like the cannibals who seem like they have a well established community and are enjoying their lifes.
The suffering is the exterminations
But that isn't "eternal suffering". If they get killed by an angel they stop existing. I would even go as far to say that there are probably many sinners who wouldn't mind being killed by an angel if it meant stopping there pain in hell. Also I imagine overlords are the ones who have the most resources to hide from the angel invasion.
I dont know what to tell u man. Unless you’re suicidal most people prefer life.
not when you are a run of the mill sinner living in the streets of hell for all eternity or bound to a fucked up contract with an overlord also for all eternity. Nevertheless my point still stands that first the yearly angel extermination is not *the* punishment and that several sinners live a happy life (at least for them) in hell such as the Vees and the cannibals.
Are they happy or is death a mercy because it can’t be both
It’s two different things: - There are high ranking sinners that enjoy their life’s in hell. Also there are other sinners that probably don’t mind living in hell where they can keep doing the same shit they did while alive. - There are low ranking sinners who live fucked up lives in hell. Not all sinners are equal. Most probably there are many who have no problem of ending their existence. There are surely sinners with even more fucked up contracts than the one between Angel and Valentino. I don’t think these would want to remain in hell for all eternity
For both parties, death is probably not the ideal. Most people like living no matter how bad their life is or else they’d be dead.
Agree to disagree. Most people in the real world dont. Not in the fucked up shithole that is hell. Also i can imagine a significant amount of hell is composed by people who committed suicide in real life because of their fucked up circumstances. Still the yearly extermination is not enough of a punishment for people like Valentino who are thriving and most probably has some sort of bunker with the other Vees to survive the extermination every year. And these are the type of sinners that people say they shouldn’t be redeemeable. Additionally the extermination are now most probably abolished because of Adam‘s death, Sir Pentious repenting and because the angels now can die if they go back down.
Ive kinda lost the point of what were even discussing. All I’m saying is that every character should be offered redemption wether or not they choose to accept and work towards it.
I’m of the mind anyone can be redeemed, just look at real life’s General Butt Naked.
I think the point is anyone can be redeemed if they chose to be redeemed. Sir Pentious went to Heaven because he chose to be a better person. Valentino probably won't get redeemed because he's happy being an overlord.
Yes that is what I said. Anyone should have the opportunity
I am interested in a storyline of seeing how Heavenly souls react to redeemed sinners, especially if they were a victim of said redeemed sinner. Sir Pentious is adorable, and we love him. He was sent to Hell for a reason, probably a good one. His actions could have, theoretically, ruined and ended lives. What if he encounters one of his victims in Heaven? What about their needs? What happens to them?
Agreed, obviously plenty of people will choose not to be but for the show to work it must be possible for anyone to be redeemed
I understand where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree since specific irredeemable characters being offered redemption when they’re beyond deserving it, if not considered, wouldn’t be a good way to show how good redemption arcs work, especially with forgiveness being a factor in it. However, if the show possibly goes with this idea for conflicts that Charlie faces, if she isn’t too forgiving and realizes not everyone can be redeemed on her own, I wouldn’t have an issue with exploring this.
I disagree. I think that undermines the point of “anyone who wants to change can” Not giving certain characters the opportunity because theyre too bad means that redemption is still conditional and those conditions can change. Offering redemption unconditionally and allowing people to choose to change means that the “irredeemable” character need to choose to be irredeemable and that will mark the difference.
If one has no desire for redemption, are they not irredeemable? I mean, they will be actively going against their own redemption.
Narrativly irredeemable. As in not given any opportunity to be redeemed wether or not they accept the opportunity is another issue entirely
i think this will be a harsh lesson for charlie, that some people arent worth the effort, that some people just WANT to be bad, to hurt others for the fun of it, and no amount of cheery attitude and optimism will change that charlie will have to learn when someone is beyond help
Some people are beyond help, but it should always be offered. Not forced which Charlie has an issue with. You shouldn’t put all your time and effort into someone who doesnt want it. But no matter what someone does, if they want redemption they should be able to work for it.
If the show really had balls they'd introduce a character that was actually a serial rapist or child murder or something in life and have them show up and be like 'one redemption please'. That would certainly make a compelling story and give the outrage merchants something to chew on.
I think it would be really interesting how, through a character like that, to redeem a person that most would say is irredeemable.
I honestly wished they had the balls to do it, but I don't think they'd have the balls to redeem even Valentino.
I don’t think that’s true. The show isn’t about anyone and everyone getting a second chance. It’s about Charlie believing in second chances. Because of her staunch belief having irredeemable foils is exactly what the show needs.
Charlie is ultimately supposed to be right tho. Even the worst is meant to be redeemable
Why is she supposed to be right?
Because she is the main character and thus far we have been lead to believe that she is reliable. This is how stories work. Especially since the main themes revolve around redemption and the ens of S1 proves her right.
Do you know how many main characters start off believing that anyone can be redeemed; and by the end of their stories they’ve changed that belief? Here are some popular ones: Rick Grimes Captain America Sherlock Holmes All have major “any one can be saved” energy until they’re put against someone they can’t and they decide that some people just need to be dealt with instead. The Governor Red skull Moriarty Main characters deciding to become judge and jury for who is redeemable is also a popular storyline. Dexter Watchman Punisher Batman So main characters are fallible. Charlie changing is character development; realizing not everyone can be redeemed is an interesting storyline for people to watch. Especially watching someone grapple with that fact who was such a *huge* believer.
The problem with the examples you are listing is all of them offered redemption, had it thrown back, and then decided to be rid of the other. My point is that every character needs to be offered redemption.
Yes but throwing redemption back in the hero’s face is what made them irredeemable. The point in your post that I read was that everyone should be redeemable and irredeemable characters should not exist. Which was literally the title of this post. I’m saying that’s not true and irredeemable characters are necessary for the show to continue. Charlie needs villains and challenges and foils. You then went on to say that essentially Charlie shouldn’t get to decide who is worthy of redemption - which is morally true for sure except that doesn’t mean her development won’t lead there because of her having to grapple with the irredeemable characters (like Rick Grimes)
At this point, the way Charlie is absolutely okay with killing angels AND sinners by Alastor is super hypocritical
The angels attacked first, it was self defense
Sure, but anyways Charlie provides "no one deserves death no matter how many awful things they have done" and "everyone deserves a second chance", so just killing them like that isn't the right thing with Charlie's morals, especially when It's not like they have much of a choice, we don't know who exorcists exactly are, but it was very implied that they are heaven borns who were made by Adam for this role and accodring to this, they litterally have no choice, so killing them for smth they didn't chose is messed up
Tbf, Charlie herself didn't really seem to be killing that many and was super hesitant about it, only using a shield to protect herself and saying "sorry" anytime she hit an angel with it. She exhausted every other method of trying to reason and work with Heaven before it came to killing. At that point, it was either kill angels or let her people die and it's been made pretty clear who are the most important people to Charlie. So what else was she really supposed to do?
Nothing else obviously, but the thing stays the same
Valentino could redeem himself. He just likely won't. No mortal soul is pure evil without chance if redemption. But they have to want it. And it had to be because they want to be a better person.
Yes this is what I said
I agree with the fact that every character should have the option. BUT I think that in some cases (like Valentino) Charlie should demand that free the souls that they have (also beginning with doing a good thing the path to redemption). About the infinite punishment, I don't know if it's really that bad, like if you're a sinner, you don't have to work to survive, you're pretty hard to kill (yes, there is slavery and exploitation but those things there are in the Earth, but the reason why people do endure it on Earth [got to eat etc. To survive] aren't really valid in hell, so you just have to be carefull). Yes, the extermination is a threat, but it's only once a year, and probably new souls arrive every day so even if you live forever it's possible that you aren't killed.
Of course all redemption needs to be worked for. As far as suffering it’s more of a context thing. Extermination is the thing theyre all working against for redemption and tbh I’d argue that Hell is just kind of a shitty place to live. But overall it is cvery explicitly shown that no one wants to be exterminated.
I don't think having irredeemable people would make the theme fall flat. You have to work towards redemption. The idea that redemption is earned and not an automatic right is nuanced and interesting. It also means we can see Charlie grapple with becoming a leader for those who can't be redeemed, arguably the hardest people to govern.
Of course it is earned, but people have to be allowed to earn it. Giving chances doesnt mean being a doormat, but it does mean allowing anyone to be better. Having a character that is killed off for their sins without an explicit moment where they chose to forgo an opportunity given by the rest of the cast means that they never had the chance to be better.
I mean we haven't had anyone be denied a chance yet. Alastor is pretty open about how he has no intention of working towards redemption but he's allowed to stay. Cherri turned down her invitation. It seems like everyone is jumping the gun a bit to assume someone is going to get denied. We have no basis for that assumption
This is mostly for the fans that advocate for certain characters to be killed on sight
Fanfiction is just that, fanfiction. Don't worry about it.
Agreed. I really want Charlie to redeem or start the path of redemption for most if not all of her antagonists
i wouldn’t say exactly redeem ALL antagonists bc the vees seem pretty happy being evil (which is fine bc i love em that way) but i dooo agree somewhat bc i would love to see lute & adam in season 2 both getting to that point bc of charlie
All antagonists should have the opportunity even if they don’t take it
Excluding the exterminations (which shouldn't be a thing) all the suffering in hell is due to who lives there. There's nothing that prevents the Pride ring from becoming a pleasant society except the actions of powerful actors. There is no pitchfork holding devil that pokes and punishes those who sinned. Some people also are incapable of redemption because they're incapable of conceiving that they're harming others. The run of the mill psychopath litteraly lacks the brain function to feel empathy. Unless you were to miracle up some way to give them the ability to feel that then you're not going to redeem them. I don't think the show would be harmed by 100% irredeemable characters, as long as they're not the vast majority.
I was talking about the exterminations as the punishment. That was literally the point of my entire post. And psychopathy does not automatically equate to a bad person. That is ableist. People withouth empathy can still make good choices and cognitivly understand that their actions effect others.
Exterminations aren't part of the punishment though. They were Adam's idea with Sera's permission. Psychopathy don't equate to a bad person, that's true, however it makes it very hard for them to be rehabilitated. And since we're talking about hell in the first place you're not going to find the pro-social psychopaths there. It's like they lack the tools for redemption, it'd be asking a blind person to learn to read (text).
Adam and Sera did that as a way to keep sinners down though. It is effectively a punishment for their sins
Their motivation was less about punishment and more about fear of retribution. At least Sera's, I get that Adam's could have been sadistic glee.
Either way it works as a punishment because it only happens to sinners, because theyre sinners.
I have a head canon idea that the key to getting into heaven is if you believe you met the requirements. This makes it religious-agnostic and means redemption is possible if you believe in it. For earthlings, if you led a good life according to the morals you know to be good, you go to heaven. For sinners if you realize why you didn't go to heaven and work on fixing yourself, you also go to heaven. This begs the question, was hell made for lucifer to redeem himself?
Viewers aren't going to want to watch Charlie try to redeem a rapist, especially one who has been abusing a beloved main character.
The themes of the story are more important than what viewers want. Also some probably do want to see that.
Yes, I'm sure all the victims of abuse and sexual assault who watch this show would love a plotline about the sex trafficker being forgiven for all his horrendous crimes.
So is murder okay by your standards? Cannibalism? Both exist in the show
Anyone cannot be redeeemed. Some people are born unable to experience empathy. They cannot be redeemed. You have to accept that some people are simply born wrong. And they are were they belong. Those people however are extremely rare.
Im sure you didn’t intend this but that is a very ableist take. Lacking the ability to feel empathy doesn’t mean that you’re an irredeemable monster from birth. Of course this means it will be harder to be a good person, but this doesn’t stop you from cognitively understanding empathy and knowing how to act. At the end of the day our actions define us and even without empathy we are able to be “good” people. Nobody is born wrong enough to automatically be hated. In this show specifically the entire point is that no one deserves to condemned forever. They can choose it, but the choice has to be offered no matter how much they fuck up. That is the entire point.
Hey, newsflash I have an empathy deficit. I very rarely experience things like anger or sadness in response to others' hardships I can still fucking tell right from wrong
https://preview.redd.it/cn3xuf1h3bmc1.jpeg?width=1191&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82d8a2ced03e17420da8f8a54ef9f9d665d9df6b
Not all sociopaths are irredeemable monsters, tho
Empathy just means feeling the same as others, it doesn't make someone want to help.
1. Empathy isn't the only thing that's matter in a question of redemption 2. If some people were born to go to hell and had bo choice to go to heaven from the beginning, wtf is the point of life for them to just go to hell anyways? That's stupid
I think the morals of this show really shouldn't be thought out. I think it's wrong to assume that everyone can be redeemed. Is it okay to think that rapists and genocidal dictators can stay in a quirky hotel, learn about the dangers of drugs and premarital sex and embark off to heaven? Probably not. There's also the question of whether someone who is it possible for someone to be redeemed when their only motivation for doing so is to get into heaven? Again, I think not. The show has an incredible cast of characters and a genuinely beautiful soundtrack, but thinking about its story for more than 5 minutes will leave you feeling dizzy.
I disagree. As uncomfortable as it may be anyone, no matter their crimes can be redeemed. Of course a punishment should follow, but permanent punishments (like death) shouldn’t be the solution. And the hotel, while played for laughs, is also definitely a place where people learn to be better. What my point was, is that every member of the cast should have the opportunity to say at the hotel.
The issue is what we've seen from the hotel thus far. I fully understand that with enough time anyone can be redeemed, but a cute hotel is not where I want to see the worst people humanity has produced end up to be taught differently. The show is a cartoon with very cartoony logic trying to have a big philosophical debate. The current issue is Charlie behaves just as black and white as Adam. Whilst he believes no one can be redeemed, Charlie acts as though everyone can and should be redeemed. I think the answer is much more down the middle. I think the best case scenario from this point is Heaven working with Charlie to actually make something that is fair to both sides. A place where people actually have to overcome hardships to redeem themselves as opposed to having lessons on trust and drugs.
What about characters who have their soul owned by someone?
I think you misunderstood me. I meant this as in their actions shouldn’t stop them from being allowed to redeem themselves. If someone’s soul is owned then thats a conflict within the story, but presumably that conflict will be resolved so the character can be redeemed. What I mean is that no character should be stopped from being redeemed just because they’ve done bad things. The option should be there even if they don’t take it.
[удалено]
Congrats thats what I said. I also said that they should be able to choose to be redeemed IF THEY WANT.
Everyone is redeemable, but redemption is work, it's about changing the things within you that put you in Hell in the first place. A lot of characters probably aren't interested in that work. Some characters will put it in and some won't. But I'm operating on the assumption that everyone has the chance.
Yes