I don't really buy the premise of the OP. I don't think anyone has expressed a desire to see Lorca as a
hero. It's more a matter of seeing him as an antihero, or an antagonist... neither one of which is the same thing as an outright villain.
Consider Han Solo. From his first appearance in
Star Wars, he's obviously a profiteer and a smuggler. In his very first scene, in the cantina, he kills Greedo in cold blood (and never mind the retcons, we all know Han shot first). He is not a traditional hero in any sense. Yet he's charismatic, and steals every scene he's in.
Or for more complexity, how about some examples from serialized TV? DSC is always being compared to
Game of Thrones. So, consider the character arcs of the Hound. Or Arya Stark. Or Jaime Lannister. (Among others.) Each is a complex character with conflicting motivations, navigating difficult terrain between ends and means.
A lot of us thought that was what we were getting with Lorca: a complex character arc. To frame it in terms of D&D alignments, he was Chaotic Good (or at worst Neutral). Then suddenly, in the space of a single episode, all the complexity was ripped away and he flipped to a standard-issue Chaotic Evil villain.
(In the end, it really wasn't even clear why he ever had such a large band of loyal supporters in the MU. What did he offer that the Emperor didn't?)
I mean I started off the series as a Lorca apologist. I originally saw him in the same light as Captain Jellico. But then Jellico wouldn’t have the murder room. He wouldn’t encourage one of his crew to glass a planet because “sometime the ends justify terrible means.” Lorca said that. Those are his words and people still wants him protrayed as one of the good guys...
What "murder room"? Do you mean the memorabilia room?
As for glassing a planet... I just finished reading David Mack's DSC novel
Desperate Hours, wherein (spoilers!) captains Georgiou and Pike... under orders from Starfleet... contemplate doing exactly that to stop a major threat. It's presented as a major moral dilemma, as it should be, but it's not something that makes either of them a villain.
One thing I see in almost every post making the complaint is how he just suddenly becomes a villain. That's not true. We all saw and discussed the clues whenever they appeared. What's surprising imo is that anyone was surprised.
There were clues that Lorca was from the Mirror Universe (although they were also susceptible to other interpretations). But that was
not necessarily the same thing as being a villain. At least, it shouldn't have been.
But he didn’t. He won. He overcame nigh impossible odds and brought down the Empress. The only thing that brought him down was the thing that brings down all proper classical villains, his one fatal flaw. In this case that flaw was Michael Burnham.
Yeah, that's not really a satisfying answer. First, because his romantic obsession with Burnham wasn't foreshadowed at all; it was every bit as new a development as his villainy. Second, because if he really wanted to retain Burnham's loyalty, he would've behaved very differently in the episode; instead he alienated her in some pretty blatantly stupid ways. Third, because it contributes to the problem (as others have noted) that somehow every significant development in the show is All About Burnham (not merely filtered through her perspective as the protagonist, but literally
about her).
And heck, one of the early promises of DSC was that it was the sort of show that wouldn't
have traditional trope-y "villains." Even the Klingons, we were told, wouldn't be treated that way; they might be the Federation's enemies, but we'd get an in-depth exploration of their motivations and politics. (Yeah, that didn't happen either.) So turning Lorca, arguably the best-developed character in the show so far, into a one-note villain, is just one more way the show has fallen short of its promise and its potential.
