Like, you do realize Hannibal is a Cannibal right?
HE FUCKING EATS PEOPLE
I suggest that you go watch the films, or read the books.
Because Hannibal is by no definition “good”.
Don’t confuse a well written, well acted character for someone on the good spectrum.
If you consider the…
You know my literature professor, head of our science fiction and Fantasy class ( Yes, that exists) said basically the same thing you are right now and while you are right within certain reasons such as In Red Dragon, he is no where near a Anti-Hero or “Good person”, he is more of a double edged blade. He helped Will. Check one for good, He was also bitter and resentful of being caught and pushed all these feelings towards Will, Because, Hell! He’s the man who caught him, the man who proved himself smarter, but on top of that! He’s the man who Lecter viewed at the one person who may actually be able to see him for who he was; Not insane. When Will failed to do this, well, Lecter doesn’t do well with failure.
So, Yes. In Red Dragon, absolutely not a Good man, or hero, or even Anti-Hero.
Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal and eventually Hannibal Rising, this is where the argument gets harder.
This is where I must remind you the definition of Anti-Hero is: antihero (or antiheroine as the female) is a protagonist who has no heroic virtues or qualities (such as being morally good, idealistic, courageous, noble, and possessing fortitude, blurring the line between hero and villain. I repeated “ who has NO heroic virtues or qualities”
*Spoilers for those of you who have not read the books*
Hannibal is the man he is today because of his past. Your not going to be the same after you’ve watched your parents get slaughtered and your certainly not going to be the same when you’ve watched soldier’s at their worsts eat your three year old sister before feeding you the scraps.
Through out Hannibal Rising he proves to be the Anti-hero, over and over again. Yes, he kills, yes he eats people. But this is something that has been embedded in him now. Hannibal wasn’t born a Cannibal, he was made one.This is a book about a boy, who was traumatized from a very young age and decides to get revenge upon his sister’s killers. And you can’t say you disagree because to be technical throughout all of Hannibal Risings, He was viewed as “The protagonist” If Hannibal had no regards who human life what so ever, this would make him the monster most perceive him as, and honestly who he was in Red Dragon. That is when he is the villain, or as you have put it “Lawfully Evil”
Now let’s talking his relationship with Clarice. Clarice is the biggest part of any of this. Hannibal could kill this woman, he has thought about more then once, he’s had fantasy’s about how she would taste but he never does. She reminds him of his sister. He, despite only having a single digit contact with her physically feels the need to protect her, he’s astonished and drawn to her. He wants to see her successful but his nature, that he has now developed through several books compels him to also watch her suffer. He has never hurt Clarice, he has never even tried to send her to her death, or put her in a situation where she might die. She stumbled upon Jame Gumb completely by accident. When she was suspended from the FBI he came to her, tried to give her purpose, was willing to let her chase him just so she could feel that need of justification again. He likes her to have a purpose.
So, Let the record show;
Hannibal Rising: Anti-Hero/Protagonist
Red Dragon: Antagonist
Silence of the Lambs: Anti-Hero
Just because a character kills and is a Cannibal means nothing. It means the writer had taken the time to give that character flaws and quirks. As lame as a rendition those words are. Hannibal is a character that is constantly on the line of good and evil. He plays only for his own amusement and his own goals, This would make him a neutral party.
Your argument would be valid though, That is if Hannibal Rising wasn’t written.
"What if I Harmed them, Clarice. The ones who have harmed you.
What if I made them scream apologies?
No, I shouldn’t even say it, because you’ll feel…
with your perfect grasp of right and wrong…
that you were somehow accompli.”