.Honestly, I think we’ve seen this debate come up very often on this sub. Even if it’s not always the main topic, I believe it’s interesting to talk about it because, whether you like it or not, morality plays a major role in how a character is written—especially in the transmission of a message.

I’ll take five simple examples: Deadpool, Homelander, Arthur Morgan, Minato Kageaki, and Rudeus (who is really at the center of the debate).

First, we have Deadpool. He has an image similar to someone like Trevor—he commits morally reprehensible acts, but they’re handled in such an exaggerated and controlled way that we don’t necessarily condemn him. It’s often played for comedy, and the work doesn’t aim to judge him or treat his actions in a fully realistic manner.

Second, we have outright scumbags like Homelander, who are clearly denounced by the writers. Morally, he hits rock bottom. Despite having a tragic past, he is objectively a bad person no matter how you look at him.

Third, there’s a recurring case that isn’t necessarily as serious as the others because the acts are portrayed in a far less cruel or brutal way: Arthur Morgan. He’s a man who committed truly questionable acts in his past and simply wants redemption—to become a better man, even though he’s fully aware that what he did was wrong. Another, darker example could be Yusuke Saito, who committed far worse acts, but you get the idea.

Then we have Minato Kageaki. He is also a terrible person, but morally more gray. His actions are much more nuanced, as are the reasons behind them and their consequences on his mind. We’re not told he is completely evil or completely good. He has done wrong—there’s no denying that—but the creators’ goal is precisely to explore human morality in its complexity and ambiguity. His actions are criticized, but that’s not the only defining aspect of his character.

Finally, we have probably the biggest controversy on this sub: Rudeus. His case is fairly unique. He’s a kind of derivative of Arthur Morgan in the sense that the author clearly tries to present him in a positive light—as a man who improves despite his past mistakes and changes thanks to the second chance he’s given. That’s one of the main themes of the work.

So why is he criticized so much compared to the others? It’s simple: the character does not evolve in an adequate way, and a large part of the atrocious things he does are not well handled. They are sometimes even played for comedy, which creates a major inconsistency and breaks the narrative. The author’s preferences and fetishes clearly influence the work, which can impact how the message is conveyed and how we perceive Rudeus, affecting his development and the way we experience it. So it’s completely coherent to criticize Rudeus on that point, and I don’t really see why some people argue against it and act like he's perfect .

To finish you’re free to like or dislike Rudeus. It’s legitimate to like him like any other fictional character, even if he’s not constructed in the best way (which is not my case). And you’re free to hate him because he’s a rather poorly constructed and inconsistent character whose morality is badly developed. That’s your choice. But constantly arguing about it isn’t going to move anything forward. They aren't real ,they are fictive character 

The immorality of fictional protagonists