It’s a good comparison. Both Magneto and Redcloak commit evil to achieve what is ultimately a good end - a just and peaceful world for their respective people.
The difference is that we want Redcloak to succeed and Magneto to fail because Redcloak would be happy to achieve his goal without wholesale slaughter if it were possible whereas Magneto’s goal requires genocide to be achieved. Redcloak remains redeemable; Magneto, probably not.
If you are gonna go with comics, not only is every villain occasionally one of the good guys, but it seems that most of them end up teaching at Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters.
Well done: Marvel Comics’s Sandman - he and the Thing have a talk over beer, and he decides to go straight.
Badly done: Earth-Man in the last version of Legion of Super-Heroes. No reason given for his total about-face regarding how he views the Legion.
D’OH! That’s who I was thinking about when I mentioned Scorpion. I liked Sandman’s redemption path. I don’t know if Scorpion became a good guy but I don’t think so.
X-Men in general is the king of this trope. For a while in the '80s, Magneto renounced being a supervillain and worked as the head master for the Xavier Institute. Rogue was a villain until she picked a fight with Ms. Marvel and accidentally permanently drained her of her powers and memories - and was so horrified she ran straight to Professor X and hasn’t looked back since. Emma Frost was the White Queen of the Hellfire Society, and ran her own mutant school until she ended up the sole survivor of the Genosha massacre, and joined the X-Men. Not quite the same thing, but possibly my favorite: Sam “Cannonball” Guthrie was first introduced as a mook for a supervillain, who apparently hadn’t been debriefed on the whole, “You’re supposed to be evil now,” aspect of his job, and quits to join up with the heroes the first time his boss tells him to kill someone.
Hearst is the name you’re looking for. Yes Al is a bad guy, but he comes to love the town of Deadwood, and will do anything to protect it. And, being played by the great Ian McShane helped.
Sylar is a great example of just a bad character, played by a barely adequate actor.
On the contrary. I think he was a great villain, but the show’s handling of the character’s popularity by turning him into a moping good guy was kinda shit. It didn’t feel like an arc as much as a screeching U-turn. Yes, he might have loved Buffy - but while he was love’s bitch before, it never stopped him from being a creepy bastard. He lost the creepy bastardness in his “conversion”, and ceased being badass at all.
That’s not a good end if you’re not their people - and, sorry for the Godwin, but look at it this way : all Hitler ever wanted was a just and peaceful world for his people 
You’re right, at least for the mutants (I immediately thought of Rogue)
But, for two non mutant comic book characters who began as villains, I first thought of Hawkeye and the Black Widow who began as Iron Man villains before reforming and joining The Avengers and S.H.E.L.D. respectively.
Klaus in Netflix’ vampire series The Originals.
Starts off as the most unhinged, wild, cruel, crazy and egotistical of the three vampire protagonist family; ends up as the one who is the best strategic mastermind; becomes a father, and then even starts loving a human good girl.
Tunes of Glory, starring Alec Guinness and John Mills.
Dead Ringers, starring Jeremy Irons as a pair of twins.
Each movie starts out with a very obvious “hero” and a very obvious “villain”. As each movie progresses, the “hero” gradually alienates your affection, and the “villain” gradually earns your respect.
And that reminds me of Hawk (not eye.)
King Koopa (AKA Bowser) goes from kidnapping Princess Toadstool and shooting fireballs at Mario to playing go-carts and being invited over to parties with the same characters in just a few short years.
The first character introduced in Watchmen in Rorschach (though you don’t know it yet). As the story progresses you come to realize that he is a very unhinged, violent, unlikable person. But by the end, he becomes the voice of reason, and I found his death the saddest of all in the book. How’d that happen?
Nice!
Note that it is generally great actors that can pull this off.
He wasn’t! He kept insisting on his “Hero Killer” theory while Night Owl did all the actual investigating. And at the end he was completely unreasonable- what was the point of letting the death of millions go to waste? Sheer pride.
Perhaps.
Maybe I’m just mad that Dreiberg and Juspeczyk didn’t kill Veidt for what he did (he can’t catch every bullet!) and that Veidt “wins”. And that I’m transferring to Rorschach my problems with them.
But I disagree about wasting those lives. He was right - the story did need to get out. The ends don’t justify the means, and Veidt needed to be held accountable. It’s was pride that killed him, but he was seeking justice.
And then there’s Grimace.
Severus Snape?