The stars burn cold, the heroes weep, The world moves on, as time must pass. The gods are dead, yet their echoes keep, Whispering softly… of The One Who Was.
Writing
of reading
200
Read books
Their rank is SSS, same as him
not convenient = dumb?
yeah, my bad. I wrote "could cost a small fortune" there, I thought it was an explanation enough. A Card's price depends on its function. Say, an X-ray Card will be cheaper than a Fireball Card. A Fireball Card will be cheaper than a Quickstep Card, and so on. So, even common-grade Cards "could" cost a small fortune, but it's not a rule of thumb.
"private" conversation between two people
Yeah, buddy. I'll give you a fair warning rn. Despite "villain" in the title, the MC is not evil beyond reason like Fang Yuan or some shi. So if you're expecting something like that, drop. He'll be a dark anti-hero like Lucas Morningstar (if you've read IWKTA). If you don't like that kind of MCs and/or don't have the patience to wait for the story to unfold, drop here.
Yes, many scenes and settings are inspired by the Name Of The Wind in my novel
Be my personal jester
Oh, but just to answer your question—yes. He would have run away, and he absolutely would have killed the main characters. And in that situation, he would have been a villain. But in this storyline, he’s not — because he hasn’t done any of it. Like I said, situations change how characters react. If, in the future, he became friends with the main cast and started helping them, would he suddenly be considered a hero? What if he started selflessly saving people— would that make him a hero? Yes, because circumstances change. And with them, so do labels. Consider one of the character I've based him on, Zuko from Avatar The Last Airbender. Zuko started out as a soft Villain, became an Anti-hero (sort of), and after one of the best redemption arcs in tv history, he became a Hero.
Your argument that if Samael could run away then he "isn’t even an anti-hero—he isn’t ANYTHING” is an oversimplification. Characters don’t need to be static in their morality. They can shift between heroism, anti-heroism, and even villainy based on their circumstances. Necessity doesn’t erase anti-heroism. Just because Samael is forced into his role doesn’t mean he ceases to be an anti-hero. Many classic anti-heroes act out of necessity rather than principle like Eren Yeager who nearly ended the world to save his people, or Ozymandias from Watchmen who killed millions to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If their actions are driven by survival or power rather than a moral compass, it doesn't make them "nothing" — it makes them complex. Samael's willingness to use people and sacrifice others doesn’t make him a villain — it just makes him a pragmatic, ruthless anti-hero. Despite his motivations, if his actions are for humanity's survival, then he absolutely is an anti-hero. If he ever stopped caring about saving the world and only pursued power for himself, then he’d officially cross into villain territory. But as long as his actions — no matter how brutal — are still tied to preventing a greater disaster, he remains an anti-hero, just one with very bloody hands. For example, in Ishtara, he let so many people die. But he also killed the High Priest. In the future, the High Priest was going to raise an army for the Syndicate and declare his region free from the Central Monarch's rule That would've caused a lot of mess and a big war for the control of Ishtara. Samael stopped that. Sure, he could've prevented both disasters if he had given up on obtaining power, but in the end, some good still came out of his actions.
I see your point, but you were wrong about one thing. Batman isn’t an anti-hero—unless you’re talking about Flashpoint Batman or The Dark Knight Returns. He’s more of a Dark Hero or a Vigilante Hero. Why? Because despite his ruthless methods and use of fear, he refuses to kill, even criminals. That strict moral code keeps him on the extreme end of traditional heroism rather than pushing him into anti-hero territory. If Batman abandoned his no-kill rule and started executing criminals instead of capturing them to better the society, he’d immediately shift into anti-hero territory. A proper example of that kind of anti-hero would be the Punisher. While Batman is a gray hero, Punisher is a proper anti-hero. By definition, an anti-hero drives the story forward but lacks traditional heroic qualities like morality, idealism, or selflessness. Those with "good" goals but questionable methods also fall into this category — like Light Yagami, who wanted to create a crime-free world, or Deadpool, who operates on his own twisted sense of justice. I consider my mc an anti-hero because his end goal — to save the world — isn’t inherently evil even though his methods are. In many ways, he fits the Dark Messiah archetype, like Eren Yeager (though his role shifts depending on perspective) or Paul Atreides (before he became the God Emperor). In the end, it’s all about perspective. If anyone wants to consider my MC a villain or a hero, I won't argue because it's their perspective. Because Samael’s philosophy is that of Ends (saving the world) Justifies All Means (gaining power by sacrificing anything) — which does make him ruthless and evil at times. But he still can’t be seen as a traditional villain since his ultimate goal isn’t villainous, no matter if it's necessary from the reader's perspective or not.