I guess thst I should have used a different wording. Still, actions of neither character would make a person that many would sympathise. Also, I don't see how Vader dying had any impact on him doing anything towards repairing the damage the character had done. I can see how it makes him more sympathetic in another person's view, but don't you think that, essentially, what he did during the battle of Endor was too little too late?

I apologise for protruding the discussion of this topic, and only made this message because there was a question seemingly addressed to me. I think that I probably should withdraw from discussing the topic any longer to not annoy anyone.

I think the key difference between Kallus and Vader is that the former is a true believer who is slowly finding his convictions questioned while the later was a genocidal manac whom's last action in life was to destroy the sith. History rightfully remembers the latter as a monster with only Luke being a witness to his last change of heart.

Thing is with Kallus is that as a true believer he would do whatever the empire asked of him, we see it all the time of ordinary people doing horrid things because a person in authority told them to do it. Yet slowly he's beginning to question whether that really was the best cause of action, not really a redemption, but rather a slight fracturing of his mental armour that he wore up to now.

And to be fair, if your trying to kill someone/capture rebels, usually the last thing you do is have a reasonable conversation, hence the earlier episodes he was an arse because he was doing his job. The only thing that strikes me as somewhat Kallus was kicking that stromtrooper to his death, largely because generic cartoon evil.

and as a cartoon character in a universe that forgives genocidal manacs, motivations are like a school of fish, they change direction with any given scene.

The only thing that strikes me as somewhat Kallus was kicking that stromtrooper to his death, largely because generic cartoon evil.

Possibly that's a case of "early installment wierdness," which often happens in TV series when the characters aren't 100% fleshed out. Prime example is Sokka in Avatar: The Last Airbender, who started off as a very serious and macho-minded character before evolving into the idea guy and comic relief character that fans best know and love. To draw from that same series, you've got Prince Zuko, who was an over-angsty teenage antagonist who grew to become a fandom favorite and one of the good guys as his character developed (plus learning he wasn't nearly as awful a person as we'd been lead to believe).

In Kallus' case, I'd say the trooper was combination EIW as noted and Kallus being extremely frustrated at that point, and lashing out in anger at the nearest available target. Also worth keeping in mind that to the Imperial military mindset, they operate on the "we have reserves" mentality of their soldiers being replaceable cogs in the larger machine. So kicking one trooper that was being much too flippant in the face of Rebel activity likely wouldn't be much of a blip on Kallus moral radar at that point in time, what with him being a completely loyal ISB Agent.

To say nothing of history being full of people that have done horrible things in their past (up to and including murder), and later turning their lives around and trying to do some good, such as people from the inner cities that served prison time for violent crimes, and upon getting out dedicated their lives to trying to steer other young people from making those same mistakes.

If Kallus does do a heel-face turn, he may well expect that he won't be so easily forgiven for what he's done, and accept as part of the cost of his penance; he may never be able to make full amends for his past crimes as a loyal Imperial officer, but he can at least do his utmost to avert such future crimes by aiding the Rebellion.