I feel like Guwon isn't the bad guy

it literally doesnt matter if he knows or not he’s still the bad guy lmfao

Obviously but he’s basically a newborn, sure in our eyes he’s evil but he’s doing the right thing in his point of view. Our mc teaching him could possible change his perspective and he’ll realize what he’s doing isn’t right. We don’t know his backstory yet but I could find some sort of justification if it turns out he’s a creation and has only been alive during the apocalypse

literally none of that would justify anything. it doesnt matter if he didnt know, or if he thought what he was doing was right, or any other theory people come up with. it does not change anything, he is and always will be the bad guy.

Maybe, I don't know. I feel like it's not that easy, it's not that manichean. I understand that you say "Guwon kills people so he's the bad guy", but it doesn't fit right to me. Like there's a complexity in the scenario regarding what Guwon does, what he thinks he does, and why he does them, that the statement "Guwon kills people so he is the villain" doesn't take into account.

Exactly. Why people can't understand this? And the blame over that female character wanting to kille Guwon HE LITERALLY KILLED HER FRIEND AND ALL THE PEOPLE SHE LOVES. The dick riding in this comment section is insane. We get it, Guwon is hot, but pretending he's not quite literally a character that is deservingly hated by other characters screams to me 'i feel bad for liking a bad character, so i want to justify it'.

The theory you make that he could be a creation that has been alive only during the apocalypse is really interesting. Like I was kinda focus with the theory that Guwon was Hades because of the title of the bl, and the meaning of Guwon in korean, but I find like your theory is giving, i love it.

no it is that easy, you’re just obsessed with him.

I never blamed the female character for wanting to kill Guwon nor Teach. In fact, I totally understand them. I'm just saying that there's more depth in the story than only proclaiming that Guwon is the bad guy. You can't fully understand the bl nor the character if you're only saying that Guwon is the villain, that's what I think. And stop looking down on people because they want to engage in a deeper reflection or because they don't agree with you.

Why in hell you don't want to think ? Why don't you want to have a deeper reflection ? Why can't you take a deeper reflection on what role plays Guwon in the story ? That's crazy, this injunction of non thinking. If you want to stay in your bubble where everything is black or white, where everything is simple so you don't have to use your brain a little bit, go on please. Let us talk about morality and what does that mean in the story and go back to your simple bubble world.

LOL bc it wouldn’t change anything, guwon is still the bad guy! that’s just a fact! stop making excuses

I wasn't talking about you specifically, that's why i said "people in this comment section". I was generally speaking about an opinion commonly repeated by people that try to justify him.

Look dude, it's absolutely valid to analyze a character's motivations, psychology, and narrative role without trying to justify their actions. Exploring Guwon's behavior can certainly provide insight, but that doesn't inherently support the claim that "Guwon isn't the bad guy" If your goal was purely analytical, that would be one thingg but your original comment clearly leaned toward legitimizing that interpretation rather than offering an objective analysis.Regardless of Guwon's motivations or role, he has committed morally wrong actions that position him as a 'bad guy' to many characters in the story, including the main character even if it turns out he didn’t kill the MC’s father. Saying he's not the bad guy based on subjective interpretation doesn't negate the actual harm he's caused. In this world, evil isn't defined solely by cold, calculated malice. Harm can still be morally wrong regardless of intent. Understanding someone's psychology might explain their behavior, but it doesn’t excuse or erase what they've done. Even in real life, psychological analysis aims to understand, not justify harmful actions. The person insists on their point, not because you are 'super insightful' and willing to engage analysis while they're not, but because they made a very clear point and doing an analysis would be pointless, since they didn't come to analyse his motivations but to correct you on this very harmful statement you made "Guwon isn't the bad guy because he's not aware enough about human morality and emotions". As i said already, not all evil is calculative. His actions were morally wrong and have harmed people, which automatically made him the bad guy. If Guwon killed every person you love, and he did it because he doesn't understand 'human morality and emotions' would you still consider him "not the bad guy" despite his actions? Does not understanding change actions? You don't have to be a calculative sadist to be "The bad guy". People do bad things all the time because they either believe they do the right thing or they don't understand. They still harm though, and since we take into account "nuance", that thing being "murder" or severe violence certainly plays a significant role.Guwon IS the bad guy because his actions make him so. However no one said that this is all there is to him. Someone bad rarely is only that. That's the charm of well written stories.

First, I think you misunderstood me, I'm not trying to justify his actions but to explain them, and you can't explain them by saying "Guwon is the bad guy." And my initial comment was confusing. I was confused and hesitant about Guwon being the bad guy, I said it literally, and no, I didn't legitimize his actions at all but I explained them. And precisely, if according to the morality of all the characters, what Guwon did is morally reprehensible, but Guwon's morality is not the same as everyone, so what gives you the right to ignore his morality when he sees himself as having done acts of kindness? It's your morality (which we all share) but immediately, it biases you. If you index yourself on the morality of the majority, you legitimize oppression from the point of view of the minority. On the other hand, if you ever favor the morality of the minority, you are committing a nonsense from the perspective of the majority. Both propositions are unsatisfactory; they fail to encompass "the richness of history." So saying that he's the bad guy isn't enough, or isn't even automatic.

Second, the person in the previous comment literally said "there's no need to think further" and I don't agree with that. That's not my philosophy, I think you can always dig deeper into a question. And saying that Guwon might not be the bad guy isn't saying he didn't kill people, it's not the same thing. Finally, thinking that an analysis would be useless is going against the term analysis itself. What gives you the right to say that an analysis would be useless, that the point would be very clear, just because YOU have already made up your own mind? Precisely, the person in the previous commemt didn't come with the same goal as me. I just wanted to dig deeper into a question, because I felt it was more complex, the person came to correct me as if they knew everything, as if there was only one correct answer. So no, I don't agree. I think that asking the question: "Guwon did kill people, but is he really the bad guy in the story?" is a question that we have the right to ask ourselves, and therefore there is not just one answer, and especially not a SIMPLE answer.

Third, in our society, we don't treat people who aren't aware of the dominant morality in the same way as people who aren't. When a person, for example, has a psychological problem, we don't treat them the same way if they kill people, as a healthy person who kills people. That's the goal of justice, to adapt to each person, according to a law superior to the hierarchy of norms. That's also why case law exists. Otherwise, a child, a battered woman, a privileged man, and an autistic person would be treated the same way, which would be profoundly unfair. If you were sentenced to 10 years for murder regardless of the circumstances, there would be no judges or justice.

"His actions were morally reprehensible and hurt people, which automatically makes him the bad guy." No. Again, it's according to your morality and the prevailing morality (that we still all share), but in doing so, you're forgetting the extenuating circumstances. Again, a person who doesn't fit, or who doesn't understand human morality, isn't judged the same way in our society. Again, if it were automatic, there wouldn't be any judges. "Guwon is the bad guy because his actions make him so. Yet, no one said that was all."

The person who wrote the previous comment didn't add any nuance. For her, there wasn't any more thought to be put into it; this person's simplistic vision makes me despair. And I'll end with this: the act of killing doesn't automatically make you bad. I think we can all imagine someone killing legitimately. A soldier who goes to fight a defensive war with his country to repel enemies. This guy kills people and yet he's not seen as the bad guy. A woman who gets beaten by her husband, who decides to kill him. The woman kills the husband but isn't seen as the bad guy. So no, the act of killing doesn't automatically make you bad. It's all an about circonstances. It's not automatic.

And what annoys me about what you say is that you think that morality is one and indivisible, and that it is self-evident. If that were the case, there would be no more philosophers. I would even say more, what annoys me is that you think you have the knowledge infused, you think that, since you have formed your own opinion, it must be the only one to exist. And finally I find it extremely worrying to call people to never think (it was the person in the previous comment) further, to never dig because it confirms the stereotypes about our fandom (that we are only here for smut and toxic relationships). No. We must stop thinking that everything can be explained by a sentence, we must also stop thinking that we cannot have uncertainty, but in situations that seem the most certain. I need to know if you are American because that would explain a lot of things since I am French maybe we don't have the same way of studying thought and morality (I am also a student at the University)

Cool i appreciate the clarity you've brought to your position especially the distinction you're drawing between explaining an action and justifying it. You're right that these aren't the same thing, and I also agree that fiction is richer when we examine these tensions. But where I think we diverge is less about whether Guwon's perspective matters, and more about what weight it holds in light of the harm he's done. Yes, his morality might be alien, even logically consistent to him but when it comes to his role in the story and the emotional experience of the readers and characters, his actions (killing,destruction etc) carry clear consequences that can't be erased just because he "didn't know better". That doesn't mean we can't explore his psychology, just that understanding why someone did something doesn't undo what they did.To your example about justice systems, sure totally agree. We dont sentence a child the same way we do an adult. But even when extenuating circumstances are taken into account, the act is still legally and morally recognized as harmful. That's what I’m arguing for: not a binary, but an acknowledgment that harm, once done, exists even if it'snuanced.
Also, i never meant to say we shouldn't analyze or reflect deeper. What frustrated me (and probably others) is when that deeper reflection becomes a refusal to accept the impact of actions. Sometimes, it can feel like "he didn’t understand" is being used as a shield to soften or avoid the emotional and moral consequences Guwon's victims are dealing with. And in fiction, just like in life intent and impact both matter, but they are not interchangeable. As for whether morality is relative sure that's a valid philosophical discussion, and you're right to bring it up. But in the context of this narrative, the moral framework being used is anchored in the experiences of the characters (like the female lead, Teach etc)who do recognize what he's done as wrong. So when readers call him a "bad guy" they're often speaking from within that narrative lens not asserting some sort universal decree of evil, but responding to a storyline where death, grief, and trauma are real emotional stakes.

Oh and to clarify, I’m not American, i'm Greek(also a psychology student getting her degree this year if that matters at all). But even if I were, I wouldn't presume moral superiority based on culture, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss the value of continental moral philosophy either. Sure yur background gives you a strong framework for this discussion but at this point I just think we're approaching the same material with different priorities, you're asking what it means, and I'm saying what it does.

*female character
*your

(and whatever, i've unfortunately made various grammatical mistakes, but i believe my point comes across)

No you’re right, that’s what I meant from my original comment too. I’m not justifying his actions I’m just stating that in his eyes he’s not evil, when I consider someone “evil” it’s because they do things knowing it’s evil but in his case he’s just doing what the hounds encourage despite knowing he has the mind of a toddler regarding information. But yes right now he’s technically the villain in the story

Thank you. That's exactly what i'm trying to say however op keeps on turning the goalpost towards Guwon's psychological analysis without the general context of the story. The impact of his actions which automatically make him the villain in this context and in accordance to the characters. Never refused psychological analysis regarding a more nuanced perspective on freaking morality. Obviously if we made a comparison, the people who take advantage of his lack of "human perspective" are the main evil in the scenario, however Guwon is still the bad guy for he has literally slaughtered the loved ones of a lot of characters in the story. He's chaotically amoral. Evil can be committed even without knowledge over itsimpact and meaning, not everything is calculative or even intentional. He very much has the potential to change by adopting a different perspective which possibly what is going to happen in the story by being led on by teach. This or some sort of "let's fall further into the abyss" scenario lol Either way, i'm digging it.

even after exploring all the nuance you want and acknowledging every extenuating circumstance guwon is still objectively the bad guy. i can agree that murder doesnt always make you a bad person like when you’re defending your life or someone else’s life. but guwon isn’t defending anybody, he’s not protecting anybody, he’s not fighting in a war, he’s not killing a rapist. he kills people bc they are useless to him. he killed someone for stealing medicine for his sick child. whether he believes it’s for the good of the group or not does not matter. his intentions do not override his impact. he made the decision to end many lives bc they are not useful to him, that’s it. he is the bad buy. that part is not something to be debated.

also if you’re going to refer to someone else and not check their profile for pronouns just use they/them.

Also, this is a hilarious response to "thisislele" considering you said to me: "stop looking down on people because they want to engage in a deeper reflection or because they don't agree with you". Demanding others are nice(and i wasn't EVEN referring to you) while being yourself condescending and pretending that's intellectual superiority is wild, If you're going to advocate for moral complexity, maybe you shouldn't write off everyone who disagrees with you as brainless. AND something that i didn't mention since i didn't want to escalate the aggressiveness(but fuck it, reading your condescending responses again pissed me off) is that i don't buy that your original response is about "explaining Guwon's actions". You wrote precisely this "I feel like Guwon isn't a bad guy, he just don't know or he's not aware enough about human morality and emotions". This is a very plain indicative tof justification. It's NOT neutral analysis, it's justification. Own it. Don't backpedal and pretend you're just the calm voice of reason when your argument was already framed to excuse him. If you're going to argue for moral complexity, that includes being honest about your own stance instead of hiding behind "context" every time someone calls you out.And being "confused" doesn't change the fact that part of your consideration is to justify Guwon.