Is my antagonist too in the right?

My idea for my antagonist is someone who wants to decolonize this island by purging the human inhabitants bc (much like in real life) colonization causes huge problems for the indigenous peoples.
However, the settlers aren’t trying to be evil or oppressive. Because of disease and overpopulation, many were relocated by the royal government in their homeland, basically shipped off to sea and had to make their homes abroad.

Both sides are relatable, but as someone who cares a lot about sensitivity regarding colonialism, it makes me sort of dislike the settlers in this story because of my bias with American history of colonization.

Does this make a relatable/realistic struggle or is he too in the right?

To some he will be the hero, and that is a darn good antagonist if you ask me. There is a quote that keeps going around right now that this relates to greatly.
something along the lines of “You’re the villain in someone’s story.”
So, in this story he is the antagonist because his view differs from the protagonist. That being said, as a people we have grown accustomed to the idea that protagonists are good and antagonists are evil, and it doesn’t have to be that way. You’re on the right track to breaking that mold and making something truly memorable and unique.


I really like antagonists who are relatable.

" The truth was a mirror in the hands of God. It fell, and broke into pieces. Everybody took a piece of it, and they looked at it and thought they had the truth.
– Rumi


As said above, some will see him as the Villian, some the Hero and some won’t care.

If you want to look at it from the other point of view.

He is essentially advocating Genocide. With the approach of “The Ends Justifies the Means” or “Eye for an Eye”

Some will be against him and view him as an Extremist. Whilst those most effected will see him as a Hero, yet those most effected by his Crusade will see him as the Hero or villain depending on if they area benefactor or not.

Things like Disease from colonisation don’t go away cause you get rid of the source. Some will see the logic, and I assume some will seek the middle ground. But ultimately you Antagonist is an Extremist, he has his reasons but still taking an extreme action.

To answer the original Question:

Is this a relatable / realistic struggle?

Absolutely, we have seen this sort of character appear many times in our own history to know that it happens.

Is he too in the right?

Completely from a Point of view on that one. Whether you agree with colonisation or not, this character is advocating the removal of one evil with another Genocide. Do to evil correct each other? That is choice that people will argue for centuries.

To some he will be remembered as a hero, others a villain. It is all about perspective.

Appreciate your input! You’re right, it’s all about perspective

I think the BEST antagonists have a legit, but different, point of view. When the reader can be conflicted because they agree with BOTH sides, that makes for an emotional story. Even better is when both sides make good AND bad decisions, and when there is no easy “right” answer. Gray is a wonderful color!!

1 Like

True! I think bad for the sake of bad has its place is some fantasies but I prefer realer characters.

1 Like

An antagonist is just someone who’s in the protagonist’s way of reaching their goal.
The moral intricacies that come with that conflict, like others have mentioned, just makes the story that more interesting.

American history of colonization… alrighty. I would figure the British Empire would be something to look at with colonization, but I guess America has a couple of centuries under their belt after their independence as a British colony.

Anyway, I don’t think genocide of a group of people is “too in the right” for any audience. If the antagonist does it in a humane manner, like only killing on the battle field, not slaying the innocent, then maybe I’d more concerned of him being more likable than the MC. Maybe if he’s more diplomatic… Idk, but purging an entire people because they’re forced into movement seems a bit much.


Having an understandable motivation actually makes an antagonist much stronger! Plus, the fact you’re giving both sides of the conflict sympathetic motives opens the door for more complex moral issues and interesting discussions that don’t have easy answers. I’d gladly read a story like that.

Does that include the indigenous people?? Because that doesn’t make sense, typical villainy lol

No haha just colonizers

1 Like

Appreciate your answer! :slight_smile:

Yes I suppose my wording was incorrect. I meant the colonization of North America. The spread of disease and removal of indigenous groups was horrendous. In this sense, the colonization of this ficticious continent has a similar effect, only the settlers were more forced out of their homeland because of overpopulation.

After contact with settlers wipes out his family, my antagonist builds an army to wipe the settlers off the continent, genocide.

You know, I think it’s all about how you word it. Maybe instead of ‘settlers’, they’re refugees. Depending on how readers fall on that topic, they’ll be more inclined to root for your MC.

I don’t see how genocide, even in regards to the colonizers of the island (especially women and children) would be seen as “good”.

I wouldn’t be in favor of the antagonist, though I’m sure some would be.

sounds a bit like thanos :rofl:

1 Like

Honestly, that sounds like fun antagonist to write. Look, we are in a day and age where the roles of heroes and villian is so fluid and changable I say go for it.

The best antagonist is the one you agree with

1 Like

The hardest decisions require the strongest wills

1 Like