The Sympathy Equation: Why Readers Love Villains and Hate Heroes

Master the art of character sympathy—why readers root for antiheroes, forgive terrible deeds, and abandon “good” characters. Learn the redeemability formula that keeps readers invested.

The Paradox That Confuses Every Writer

Why do readers love:

Hannibal Lecter (serial killer, cannibal)
Amy Dunne from Gone Girl (murderer, psychopath)
Joe Goldberg from You (stalker, killer, obsessive)
Villanelle from Killing Eve (assassin, narcissist)
Walter White from Breaking Bad (drug lord, murderer)

But hate:

The perfectly nice, law-abiding character who helps old ladies cross the street
The morally upright protagonist who makes all the “right” choices
The victim character who suffers but does nothing wrong

What’s happening here?

Reader sympathy has nothing to do with moral goodness. It has everything to do with redeemability—a complex equation of charisma, motivation, and the invisible line characters cross when they lose readers forever.

Understanding this equation is the difference between:

Protagonists readers champion vs. protagonists they abandon
Antiheroes who captivate vs. villains who repel
Flawed characters we forgive vs. flawed characters we reject

This guide breaks down the sympathy equation, reveals why it’s so counterintuitive, and shows you exactly how to keep readers invested in characters who do terrible things—while avoiding the fatal mistakes that make readers slam books shut.

Understanding the Redeemability Equation

The Core Principle

Redeemability = Character’s inherent likability – (Moral transgressions × Lack of justification)

In simpler terms:

If a character possesses enough admirable qualities (charisma, brilliance, humor, courage, vulnerability), readers will forgive significant moral transgressions—as long as those transgressions feel motivated or understandable.

The balance:

High charisma + justified bad actions = Readers still sympathize High charisma + unjustified bad actions = Readers start to waver Low charisma + any bad actions = Readers abandon immediately Low charisma + good actions = Readers still don’t care

Why This Seems Backwards

Logically, we’d expect:

Good person who does good things = Sympathetic Bad person who does bad things = Unsympathetic

But fiction doesn’t work that way because:

Readers don’t care about moral perfection. They care about:

Characters who fascinate them
Characters whose psychology they understand
Characters who possess qualities they admire (even if they also possess qualities they deplore)
Characters who feel real and complex

A morally perfect character who’s boring loses to a murderous character who’s fascinating. Every single time.

The Redeemability Meter

Imagine a meter running from -100 to +100:

+100: Saint-level charisma, justified in everything +50: Likable, understandable, sympathetic 0: Neutral—could go either way -50: Losing reader sympathy -100: Reader officially done with this character

Every choice character makes either:

Adds points (displays admirable quality)
Subtracts points (does something reprehensible)

The goal: Keep the meter above 0 throughout the novel (unless you’re deliberately writing character’s descent).

The Elements That Create Sympathy

Quality 1: Charisma (The Magnetic Pull)

Definition: The quality that makes us want to spend time with character, regardless of their actions

Manifests as:

Wit/humor: Character makes us laugh
Intelligence: Character is brilliant in some way
Confidence: Character moves through world with certainty
Charm: Character knows how to work people/situations
Uniqueness: Character is distinctive, memorable

Example: Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs)

Terrible actions: Serial murder, cannibalism Charisma factors:

Brilliant intellect (helps Clarice solve cases)
Dark humor and wit
Refined cultural knowledge
Fascinating psychology
Helps protagonist despite own evil

Result: We’re horrified but captivated. The charisma outweighs the horror.

Contemporary example: Joe Goldberg (You)

Terrible actions: Stalking, murder, manipulation Charisma factors:

Literary references and intelligence
Dark humor in his narration
Vulnerability about his past
Genuine (twisted) belief he’s doing right thing
Self-awareness about his problems (sometimes)

Result: We know he’s monstrous, but we keep reading from his perspective.

Quality 2: Competence (The Admiration Factor)

Definition: Being exceptionally good at something—anything

Why it creates sympathy:

We admire skill and capability. A character who excels in their domain earns respect, even if that domain is morally questionable.

Examples:

Master thief who plans flawlessly
Brilliant detective solving impossible cases
Skilled assassin executing perfect kills
Genius hacker breaking unbreakable systems

Contemporary example: Villanelle (Killing Eve)

Terrible actions: Assassinations, psychopathic behavior Competence factors:

Incredibly skilled killer
Master of disguise
Brilliant at reading people
Creative in her methods

Result: We admire her skills even as we’re horrified by their application.

Quality 3: Vulnerability (The Connection Point)

Definition: Moments of genuine emotion, weakness, or pain that make character feel human

Why it creates sympathy:

Vulnerability creates emotional connection. When we see character hurt, scared, or struggling, we feel for them—even if we disagree with their choices.

Vulnerability types:

Emotional wounds: Past trauma affecting present
Fears: Things that genuinely scare character
Insecurities: Self-doubt despite competence
Genuine love: Person/thing character truly cares about
Moments of weakness: Times when facade drops

Contemporary example: Amy Dunne (Gone Girl)

Terrible actions: Elaborate revenge scheme, murder, sociopathy Vulnerability factors:

Pressure of being “Amazing Amy”
Genuine hurt when Nick stops trying
Vulnerable moments in diary (even if fabricated)
Desire to be truly seen and loved

Result: We understand her, even when we’re appalled by her.

Quality 4: Motivation (The Justification)

Definition: Clear, understandable reasons for character’s actions

The principle:

Any action becomes more forgivable when we understand the “why” behind it—even if we wouldn’t make that choice ourselves.

Motivation hierarchy (most to least sympathetic):

Tier 1: Protecting loved ones

Will do anything to save family
Sympathetic even if actions are terrible

Tier 2: Survival

Had no choice, it was them or me
Highly sympathetic

Tier 3: Justice/revenge for genuine wrong

Someone hurt them/loved one badly
Sympathetic if proportional

Tier 4: Misguided good intentions

Trying to help but methods wrong
Moderately sympathetic

Tier 5: Self-interest with complications

Want something for themselves but life/circumstances are hard
Somewhat sympathetic depending on execution

Tier 6: Pure self-interest

Want something because they want it
Minimal sympathy unless charisma is extreme

Tier 7: Cruelty for pleasure

Enjoy causing pain
Unsympathetic unless other factors enormous

Example: Walter White (Breaking Bad)

Initial motivation: Provide for family before cancer kills him (Tier 1) Later motivation: Ego and power (Tier 6) Result: Sympathy declined as motivation shifted from “for family” to “for me”

Quality 5: Self-Awareness (The Complexity Factor)

Definition: Character understands their own flaws, mistakes, or moral failings

Why it creates sympathy:

Self-awareness suggests capacity for growth and adds complexity. A character who knows they’re flawed feels more human than one who thinks they’re perfect.

Levels:

Full awareness: Knows exactly what they are, embraces or struggles with it
Partial awareness: Recognizes some flaws, blind to others
Zero awareness: Completely deluded about their own nature

Example: The Kite Runner

Amir’s terrible action: Betraying Hassan, witnessing rape without intervening Self-awareness factor:

Knows immediately he’s done something unforgivable
Carries guilt for decades
Understands his cowardice
Actively seeks redemption

Result: His awareness and guilt create sympathy despite the terrible betrayal.

Contemporary Examples: The Sympathy Spectrum

Maximum Sympathy: Where the Crawdads Sing

Kya’s situation:

Abandoned by family
Ostracized by community
Survives alone from childhood
Faces constant prejudice

Sympathetic factors:

Vulnerability: Deeply wounded by abandonment
Competence: Brilliant naturalist, self-sufficient
Motivation: Everything she does is survival
Injustice: Society treats her cruelly despite innocence

Terrible action: [SPOILER] Kills Chase Maintained sympathy because: Self-defense interpretation, justice for attempted rape, lifetime of abuse

High Sympathy Despite Flaws: Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine

Eleanor’s problems:

Socially inappropriate behavior
Judgmental of others
Alcoholism
Difficult personality

Sympathetic factors:

Vulnerability: Severe childhood trauma
Self-awareness: Recognizes she’s struggling
Motivation: Wants connection, doesn’t know how
Growth: Actively working to improve
Humor: Dark but genuine wit

Result: We root for her despite her flaws because we understand why she is the way she is.

Complicated Sympathy: Gone Girl

Amy Dunne’s calculation:

+ Factors:

Brilliant intellect (charisma)
Society’s genuine unfairness to women (motivation)
Nick’s actual infidelity and laziness (justification)
Vulnerability (pressure of being “Amazing Amy”)

– Factors:

Elaborate sociopathy
Murdering innocent person
No remorse
Enjoying manipulation

Result: Readers split—some find her horrifying, others darkly relatable. Flynn keeps meter hovering near zero by balancing factors.

Lost Sympathy: A Little Life

Caleb (Jude’s abuser):

No charisma shown
Pure cruelty
No justification offered
No vulnerability or complexity
Zero self-awareness

Result: Completely unsympathetic—which is intentional. Yanagihara wants readers to fully condemn him.

Maintained Sympathy Through Descent: Breaking Bad

Walter White’s arc:

Season 1: Maximum sympathy

Dying of cancer (vulnerability)
Providing for family (motivation)
Brilliant chemist (competence)

Season 5: Minimal sympathy

Ego-driven (motivation degraded)
Kills innocents
Ruins family he claimed to protect
Still brilliant, but…

How show maintained investment:

We’d invested so much already (sunk cost)
Still possessed competence/intelligence
Show acknowledged his descent
Ending promised reckoning

The Fatal Mistakes That Lose Readers

Mistake 1: The Unjustified Kick-the-Dog Moment

The problem: Character does something cruel without sufficient motivation

The “kick the dog” trope:

Character needlessly hurts something innocent (dog, child, vulnerable person) for no good reason.

Why it destroys sympathy:

Cruelty to the innocent, especially when unmotivated, signals irredeemable evil. Readers conclude: “This person is just bad.”

Examples that lose readers:

Bad: Character tortures animal for fun Character mocks disabled person for laughs Character hurts child because they’re annoyed

Why it fails: No justification = reader done

How to write difficult character without losing readers:

Instead: Show character’s cruelty as:

Response to trauma (hurt people hurt people)
Misdirected anger at real target
Desperate attempt to feel control
Something they immediately regret
Behavior they’re actively trying to change

Cruelty with context ≠ endorsement, but maintains complexity

Mistake 2: The Whiny Victim

The problem: Character suffers constantly but takes no action

Why readers abandon them:

Passivity + complaint without action = annoying

Example pattern:

Character: “Poor me, terrible things keep happening!” Reader: “So… do something about it?” Character: “I can’t! I’m too [weak/scared/damaged]!” Reader: “Then stop complaining.” Character: [More complaining] Reader: [Closes book]

The fix:

Suffering creates sympathy ONLY if character:

Takes action despite the suffering
Tries and fails (but keeps trying)
Has genuine obstacles preventing action
Grows through the suffering

Example done right: Room

Jack and Ma suffer terribly, but:

Ma actively protects Jack
Ma makes escape plan
Both fight for survival
Their vulnerability is paired with agency

Mistake 3: The Stupid Decision

The problem: Character makes obviously terrible choice for no good reason

Why readers abandon them:

We forgive characters making mistakes. We don’t forgive characters being idiots.

Classic example:

Horror movie: “Let’s split up!” (Everyone dies)

In novels: Character ignores every warning, walks into obvious trap, acts shocked when bad thing happens

The fix:

If character must make “bad” choice:

Give them reason to believe it’s good choice
Make alternative seem worse
Have them recognize risk but choose anyway for important reason
Show their internal logic

Smart character making difficult choice ≠ Stupid character making obvious mistake

Mistake 4: Crossing Cultural/Moral Taboos

The principle:

Some actions are culturally coded as “beyond the pale”—they signal irredeemability regardless of context.

Taboos vary by culture/time but commonly include:

Harming children
Sexual violence
Racial slurs or hate speech
Animal torture for pleasure
Certain religious violations

Oddly NOT included:

Murder (can be justified)
Cannibalism (if motivated—see Hannibal)
Torture (if justified or necessary)
Theft (almost always forgiven)

Why the distinction?

Cultural coding. Some acts signal “irredeemably evil” regardless of logic.

The guidance:

If protagonist must engage with taboo:

Extreme justification required
Show horror/regret immediately
Context must be extraordinary
Consider: is this necessary?

Mistake 5: The Perfect Character

The problem: Character has no flaws, makes no mistakes, always morally correct

Why readers abandon them:

Perfection is boring and alienating.

We can’t relate to perfect people. We relate to struggle, flaw, growth.

Example:

Character who always knows right thing to say, never makes mistakes, everyone loves them, succeeds at everything

Reader reaction: “This person isn’t real. I don’t care about them.”

The fix:

Give your “good” characters:

Genuine flaws (not “works too hard”)
Moments of failure
Internal struggles
Wrong choices they regret
Relationships where they’re not perfect

Flawed hero > Perfect hero, every time

Advanced Sympathy Techniques

Technique 1: The Relatability Bridge

Even when character’s actions are extreme, create relatable emotions

Example:

Extreme action: Murder Relatable emotion: Rage at betrayal, desire for justice, protective instinct

We may never murder, but we’ve all felt the emotion that led to it.

Application:

Whatever character does, ensure the underlying emotion is universal:

Love
Fear
Anger at injustice
Desire for belonging
Need for control
Shame
Loneliness

Technique 2: The “But” Statement

Structure character descriptions to emphasize complexity:

Format: “Character does [terrible thing], BUT [humanizing factor]”

Examples:

“She’s a ruthless assassin, BUT she protects street kids”
“He’s a cruel dictator, BUT he genuinely believes he’s saving his people”
“She manipulates everyone, BUT she’s protecting her family”

The “but” creates the complexity that maintains sympathy.

Technique 3: The Proximity Strategy

Show character’s humanity in intimate moments

Small, human details create sympathy:

Character crying alone
Genuine laugh with friend
Moment of kindness to animal
Vulnerability with loved one
Fear they hide from others

These moments remind readers: “This terrible person is still human.”

Technique 4: The Comparison Framework

Make character sympathetic by comparison to worse characters

If Character A is bad, introduce Character B who’s worse:

Character A: Ruthless but has code Character B: Ruthless without any limits

Result: Character A seems reasonable by comparison

Example: The Hunger Games

Katniss kills people, BUT:

She’s forced to
Others (Careers) kill eagerly
Capitol is far worse

Comparison makes Katniss sympathetic despite violence.

Technique 5: The Redemption Arc Setup

Even terrible characters maintain sympathy if redemption seems possible

Seeds of redemption:

Moments of regret
Flashes of old self
Relationships with good people who believe in them
Small acts of kindness
Internal struggle visible

Readers forgive a LOT if they believe character might redeem themselves.

Your Character Sympathy Audit

Protagonist Sympathy Check

For your main character:

Charisma factors (check all that apply):

[ ] Witty or humorous
[ ] Intelligent or skilled
[ ] Confident and decisive
[ ] Unique voice or perspective
[ ] Compelling personality

Vulnerability factors:

[ ] Clear emotional wounds
[ ] Genuine fears shown
[ ] Moments of weakness
[ ] Something/someone they truly love
[ ] Times when facade drops

Motivation clarity:

[ ] Reader understands WHY character acts
[ ] Motivations are relatable even if actions aren’t
[ ] Justification proportional to transgression
[ ] No unmotivated cruelty

Active agency:

[ ] Character drives their story
[ ] Takes action despite suffering
[ ] Makes difficult choices
[ ] Not just complaining victim

If you can’t check most boxes, sympathy likely weak.

The Breaking Point Test

Identify your character’s worst action in the manuscript.

Then calculate:

Charisma points: How likable is character overall? (1-10) Justification points: How well-motivated is this action? (1-10) Severity points: How terrible is the action? (1-10)

Formula: (Charisma + Justification) – Severity = Sympathy Score

Score interpretation:

10+: Readers will forgive
5-9: Borderline, strengthen charisma or justification
0-4: Readers likely lost
Negative: Definitely lost unless intentional

The Taboo Check

Does your character:

[ ] Harm children?
[ ] Commit sexual violence?
[ ] Use racial/ethnic slurs?
[ ] Torture animals for pleasure?
[ ] Commit other cultural taboos?

If yes: Do you have EXTRAORDINARY justification and is it necessary?

If no to either: Reconsider whether this action is worth potentially losing readers.

Frequently Asked Questions: Character Sympathy

Can a villain be the protagonist?

Yes, if they’re compelling enough. Antiheroes and villain protagonists work when charisma/competence/motivation create investment despite moral failings.

What if my protagonist is genuinely unlikable?

They need redeeming qualities or fascinating qualities. Even unlikable protagonists need something that makes readers want to follow their story.

How do I write a perfect “good guy” without being boring?

Give them genuine flaws, internal struggles, moments of failure, complex relationships. Goodness can be interesting if it’s complicated goodness.

Can I lose readers temporarily and win them back?

Risky. Once readers emotionally check out, very hard to re-engage them. Better to maintain sympathy throughout.

What about ensemble casts?

Not every character needs maximum sympathy, but POV characters should maintain reader investment. Supporting characters can be less sympathetic.

Your Action Plan: Strengthening Character Sympathy

This week:

Identify your protagonist’s three most sympathetic qualities
Identify their worst action in the manuscript
Calculate if sympathy factors outweigh the transgression

This month:

Add vulnerability moments if character feels distant
Ensure all major negative actions have clear motivation
Remove any unmotivated cruelty
Strengthen character’s competence or charisma

This revision:

Audit opening 50 pages for sympathy establishment
Check for “whiny victim” patterns and add agency
Verify taboos avoided or extraordinarily justified
Add small human moments throughout

Conclusion: The Uncomfortable Truth About Sympathy

Here’s what makes this so tricky:

Moral goodness ≠ Reader sympathy Moral badness ≠ Reader rejection

The equation is:

Charisma + Vulnerability + Competence + Motivation – Unjustified Cruelty – Taboo Violations = Sympathy

Not:

Good deeds – Bad deeds = Sympathy

This is why:

We love charismatic villains who eat people
We abandon boring heroes who do everything right
We forgive terrible actions if we understand the why
We can’t forgive small cruelties if they seem pointless

Your job as a writer:

Keep that redeemability meter above zero by:

Making character fascinating
Showing their humanity
Justifying their choices (even terrible ones)
Giving them qualities we admire
Creating emotional connection

Because readers don’t need perfect characters.

They need characters complex enough, human enough, and compelling enough to care about for 300 pages—regardless of whether those characters are heroes, antiheroes, or somewhere wonderfully complicated in between.