#Vengeance vs justice

[httyddragonfox]

The Dragon Prince: Hatred & Vengeance vs Justice.

We are always told that Justice is better than Vengeance. If someone does something morally wrong with no defense for their actions, then they need to be brought to their actions.

Viren killed Rayla's parents, at least put them in a fate worse than death, she is justified in her hatred. Viren is also a threat to Xadia, a threat to peace, willing to kill a baby dragon, start a war with Xadia, kills humans just to achieve that war. He's dangerous and needs to be dealt with. That's justice. Do what needs to be done and nothing more. However, when Viren disappears, Rayla can't rest until she knows he's gone. She gets obsessed with revenge and this makes her leave Callum behind, believing she was doing what was best for him. As she admits in the second arc, it was wrong to leave him behind and go searching for Viren. She didn't even find him so all she did was leave Callum for 2 years.

Then there's the characters who lost who they loved in similar situations.

Avizandum, the Dragon King, struck down Sarai as she attempted to save Viren's life. She didn't want to go on the mission to Xadia, she thought it was wrong what they were doing, but she died doing the right thing. Avizandum was protecting the border, he was doing his job, he's not a threat to anyone who doesn't cross it. There's no need for violent justice, sadly. It was cruel, but that's just how things were.

Similarly, Leola was tattled on by Anak Arow, which caused the Star touch elves to deem her worthy of death. Her crime, she gave magic to humans, and thanks to divination, they foresaw that this would lead to the end. Yet, she was a child who just wished to be kind to the people she loved. They were just enacting what they saw as justice, it's cruel and sad, but there is no need for justice as violence.

The best form of justice here, is making sure they don't die in vain, to fulfill their wishes. For Sarai, making sure the people could survive the winter. For Leola, making sure the humans had a chance.

However, justice is doing what is necessary and nothing more.

Both Aaravos, as well as Callum and Harrow, are justified in their hatred. (Heck, I hate the Star touch elves and Leola is not even my daughter).

How they act on their hatred determines who they are as people.

Harrow was willing to leave Avizandum alone, knowing vengeance for Sarai would not fix anything, only creating a bigger mess. Callum seeing Avizandum dead does not bring him joy, despite still hating the dragon. The reason, he's sad for Zym, it's his father and Zym is an innocent. Zym had nothing to do with what happened to his mom, heck Zym is a friend. Who is he to wish the death of a parent on him, despite it already happened, he can't be happy for it knowing what Zym has to live with.

Then there's Aaravos, who has spent centuries enacting his vengeance, trying so hard to destroy the cosmic order. Leola would have been content with humans just knowing primal magic, but he chose to make a bigger mess of things by giving them dark magic. He not only enacts vengeance on Sol Regum, but causes the end of several Xadian rulers all to cause war and have Xadia destroy itself. He killed Khessa for no reason, tried to kill baby Zym for no real reason, and had Katollis destroyed for no real reason (he could have had Claudia sneak in and get it). When Sol Regum eventually does die, Aaravos has to taunt him over the fact he's been manipulated for centuries, and enjoys his suffering. Meanwhile, he doesn't care that a kingdom of innocent people got torched.

Aaravos doesn't seem to care about lives anymore, only seeing people as potential pawns. He seems to enjoy arrogant people meeting their end in painful, humiliating ways, even if those people had nothing to do with his suffering.

Terry is right: What happened to him was awful, but he's been so twisted by hatred and vengeance that it's turned him into a monster with no concern for life, living for the suffering of others.

Callum and Harrow are better for attempting to not let their hatred rule them, Rayla is better for choosing justice over vengeance, but Aaravos is a villain for choosing violence and chaos and war.

[whumperofworlds]

Whump Dialogue

"I always wanted revenge against them. So... why do I feel guilty...?"

[bookgendrya]

She looked at their filthy hair and scraggly beards and reddened eyes, at their dry, cracked, bleeding lips.[…]The water splashed across her fingers and down her sleeve, but Arya did not move until the cup was brimming over. When she turned back towards the cages the townsman moved to stop her. “You get away from them, boy-“ “She’s a girl,” said Harwin. “Leave her be” “Aye” said Lem. “Lord Beric don’t hold with caging men to die of thirst. Why don’t you hang them decent?”

Her face throbbed. Her shoulder bled. Breathing hurt. The pain crackled up her arm like lightening. She cried out for a maester. “We have no maester,” said a girls voice. “Only me.” […] “She can’t go much further. She’ll die.” “One less lion. I won’t weep.”

“You stand accused of murder, but no one here knows the truth or falsehood of the charges, so it is not for us to judge you. Only the Lord of Light may do that now. I sentence you to trial by battle.” The Hound frowned suspiciously, as if he did not trust his ears. “Are you a fool or a madman?” “Neither, I am a just lord. Prove your innocence with a blade, and you shall be free to go.”

At the hollow hill, what you said about being King Robert’s men, and brothers, I like that. I like that you gave the Hound a trial. Lord Bolton just hanged folk or took off their heads, Lord Tywin and Ser Amory were the same. I’d sooner smith for you.”

“…till you stand before m’lady.” Renly stood behind the girl, pushing hair out of his eyes. Not Renly, Gendry. “M’lady means for you to answer for your crimes.”

“Whatever treachery you think I may have done, my lady, Podrick and Ser Hyle were no part of it.” “They’re lions,” said the one-eyed man. “That’s enough. I say they hang. Tarly’s hanged a score o’ ours, past time we strung up some o’his.”

[autisticcole]

Heheheheheho I have gotten some of the Dragon Age books (🏴‍☠️) and this is gonna really let me dig into some stuff, especially my favorite guy Cole, cause now I can read his OG appearance, I want to see how much stuff Cole says, especially during his quest actually makes sense, and how much is in-universe "both sides are right"ing about not listening to what Cole wants to do.

I am mainly talking about Spirit!Cole thanking Inky for not making him change... Despite the fact that thoughout Cole's quest Solas ignores what Cole wants (Like being binded) & wants to do (Kill the guy who beat beyond beating a 12 (at most) year old (most likely, it isn't outright stated (to my memory) the Templar who fucked up the paperwork was also one of the ones who physically abused him, but I feel it's a pretty safe assumption) & got that child killed due to neglect & faced no consequences) but ultimately the choice that causes Cole to thank the player for not changing him is the one where you listen to Solas over Cole (Or well Varric, who also doesn't let Cole do what he wants but is closer to what Cole would have done if he had went alone for the confrontation) & in this route I would say Cole's character changes a lot more, especially as he forgets the original Cole, which... Rubs me wrong, but I'll save my more detailed thoughts for 1. After I fully read Asunder & 2. Either a full Cole analysis or a detailed post about my thoughts on his quest & routes (& maybe how I'd rewrite them, as a Autistic person & a ally to the aroace community)

Anyways my point is that I want to see how true it is characters rejected or wanted to change Cole, I want to see what leads him to feel that having two men argue & tell him who he is supposed to be & do only to have a third person decide out of those two's options for what he should do is remotely a situation where he's been accepted.

[torgawl]

just remembered diluc and crepus' names mean dawn and dusk respectively... biting my fist

[redteabaron]

Its true that Theon didn't betray Starks because he was their hostage like Sansa was of Lannisters. First he was of Starks and then of Ramsey. While Starks would hate him for his supposed 'betrayal', it will be interesting to see if they would acknowledge his situation. His saving of Jeyne Poole will may affect Sansa perception. Plus she was in similar situation at KL. Bran can be similar to his show version. It would be hard for Jon and Ary@ to forgive him.

yep! it's sort of up in the air to be honest how bran will react because we are given the understanding that bran is undergoing a metamorphosis much, much different than only character growth and age. in his chapters, comparing them with other characters deeply entrenched in magic, there's a core of magic that's essentially cocooned by humanity that let's us believe we completely understand what they see/mean/feel (see patchface, primarily as melisandre is somewhat still more "present", or bloodraven, or to a degree even jojen reed, particularly if you subscribe to the jojen paste theory as I fully do).

but of them, arya and jon are hotheads, making them of like to brandon and lyanna to varying degrees especially when spotted as sibling parallels. happy reunion with jeyne or not, theon is going to face a reckoning and it will be likely very difficult for the readers because on one hand we are presented with what seems to be a really simple situation: he betrayed the family who raised him and accepted him, he faced his punishment, but he killed two boys and caused loads of others suffer with his games in a domino effect he hadn't necessarily meant, but he saved jeyne, regretted his actions and now is redeemed because of this.

i've mentioned here before that redemption isn't something given or bestowed upon a character by the audience. the characters who had wrong done to them must decide what exactly redemption is, and a true redemption path cannot be fully grasped if the character in search of it, solely takes on the task with the belief they will be redeemed in doing so. redemption isn't a cash sale business. you don't earn enough redemption coins and suddenly you've won the prize. for a character journey, the task has to be taken up with the understanding that forgiveness and redemption may fully not be coming your way and you're not entitled to it. on top of that, as you've said and i think i've got a post of that subject around somewhere, theon technically didn't betray the starks. he was a hostage. he always was.

who, in this mess, needs to forgive theon if he didn't betray the starks or the north itself for doing such things? imo it's the same answer it usually is in asoiaf, sort of lingering in the background where grrm expects us to either not pay attention to or do and find it unfulfilling because it won't really happen as we'd like it - the smallfolk.

theon will face something - but apologies won't be made to the smallfolk, and in the light of us seeing such a graphic punishment arc with ramsay that doesn't even serve nearly close enough to vengeance as we can close our eyes and pretend is justice (like dany's chapters) what comes his way won't be satisfying no matter what.

[sharonisthebettercarter]

Do you wish matricide was normalized to bitches who deserve it????

we talkin' fiction or reality???

i can't condone any form of murder in reality being 'normalized' because even IF (and that's a big if) the person is an 'evil bitch who deserves it', who's making that judgement call and why? there are factors, details that are gonna change in a case by case basis (blanketing almost anything in generalization is a very dangerous road to follow) because more often than not, it's not so simple as 'black or white'

this would be why we need proof or evidence to show that someone is guilty and should be jailed, or even that 'such and such is an evil bitch who deserves it'

be very careful with that line of thinking. even our own perception can be skewed without us realizing and there's a good chunk of murderers out there that feel justified because the victim 'deserved it'

for reality, no. 'normalizing' murder is just a bad fucking idea because there are too many who would abuse that 'normalization' and say it was 'necessary' or 'self defense' or 'they deserved it'. you'd be lookin' at an open door for people to get away with murder and others not bat an eye at it because it's 'normal' for people to get 'justifiable revenge'

that's an oxymoron, revenge CAN NOT be justifiable because it is NOT justice, two entirely different things. but the legal system is already pretty broken so i'ma vote hard 'no' on giving people more ammo to abuse it with.

for fiction tho~?

go crazy~<3<3<3 ;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

anything goes outside reality~<3 revenge porn is best served in a beautifully written story~<3

[iandrogynoussublimebouquetposts]

Also, everyone's definition of a bad person differs. So it would absolutely end in a fun witch hunt like on Twitter.

[joncronshawauthor]

What Revenge Stories Teach Us About Justice and Morality

We all like to think we’re above the base impulses of revenge. That if someone wronged us, we’d take the high road, turn the other cheek. Yet revenge stories captivate us again and again. Why? Because they speak to something primal, something we keep carefully locked away beneath our civilised exterior. Take Soren from my novel Guild of Assassins. He begins as a sculptor’s apprentice, an…

[catcr4ft]

Me (who draws) I wish I could draw

[proneterror204]

Fear vs War

Danny was sitting in the living room watching a live Justice League fight. The fight was big enough that danny thought the camera was way to close to the fight. Then Fright Knight phases into the room through the floor.

Fright knight: My liege

Danny: Fright knight what is it?

Fright knight: I wish vengeance against my abusive father.

Danny: I can understand that, But who?

Fright knight points to the tv showing the justice League fighting a figure in all black armor with glowing red eyes.

Fright knight: My father Ares, greek god of war.

Danny: Wait that make you Pho-

Fright knight: DO NOT SAY THAT NAME!

Danny: ....

Fright knight: I apologize for yelling.

Danny: its fine i understand. You must hate him quite alot.

Fright knight: More than you hate Plasmius.

Danny: Are you sure about that?

Fight knight: Yes

Danny: So you have a brother. The god of... Panic?

Fright knight: He is the god of dread, also the royal assassin.

Danny: i have assassins?!?

Fright knight: ...

Danny: Right... If you want to fight your father you're gonna have to work with the Justice League, and not kill anyone.

Fright knight: You do not desire the head of the god of war?

Danny: Eww no. I dont want to kill a god and i dont want war with Olympus. I dont want to fight Zeus.

Fright knight: But you have already beaten Zeus. He disguised his form and called himself Vortex.

Danny: ...what... Well i may be able to beat him, but there are too many women who are important to me. You know how Zeus is.

Fright knight: Ah indeed. You are wise. ... thank you.

Danny: for what?

Fright knight: It is nice to be reminded that you are not a war hungry tyrant. You care for others. It is refreshing. It is good.

Danny: *blushing* yeah yeah. It looks like you're late.

Fright knight looks at the TV to see the Justice League have already beaten Ares and the Villains.

Fright knight: I wish to go meet and congratulate my aunt on her victory!

Danny: remember to be polite.

Fright knight: i also wish to go to Gotham.

Danny: No

Fright knight: To stab a Clown and a Scarecrow.

Danny: ... Be quick and don't get caught. If anyone catches you you're on your own.

[mercy-god]

Vengeance vs Justice

[womenusingwords]

Chaos Agent

The details… Title: Chaos Agent Author: Lee Winter Publisher : Ylva Publishing Publication date: February 8, 2023 (Ylva Publishing), no date set yet for Amazon Available formats: epub, mobi, pdf, paperback (Amazon) Length: 352 pages/105,000 words IBSN: 978-3-96324-750-7 (ebook), 978-3-96324-751-4 (pdf) Genre: romantic mystery/thriller Themes: politics, political agendas, media, good vs…

[liittleemiixeer]

I know this theory has already been thought but I wanna delve deeper into it. I think the man who appears at the end of s2 ep1 is Abel. I know there have been theories about him being a demon hunter, but some of the reasons I'm not that sure he is one are tied to the circumstances of his appearance and the context provided by the narrative.

[long rant ahead hehehe]

Both look unusually pale and have a similar face structure, and the contrast of white hair vs. black hair makes me believe he might be the abel to his cain lmao. The contrast suggests an obvious juxtaposition, as if they were meant to be two sides of the same coin.

We know Cain hasn’t visited Heaven in a long time, and his strained relationships with the other immortals hint at a larger, unresolved conflict (they basically gossip about him going against his own family). AND let's not forget the deeper context here. In the biblical narrative, they're the first children of Adam and Eve. Then, Cain kills Abel out of jealousy after God favors Abel's offering over his own. But what if in HSR Abel never truly died? What if he survived and is now on a mission to confront his brother, perhaps to stop him from causing further destruction or to seek vengeance for what he did to him?

If Abel somehow endured, it would make sense for him to appear now, especially after we’ve just learned about Cain’s alternative, more destructive form. Besides, the fact that Pileon, a demon, is the one who finds him is rather telling. If this character were a demon hunter, it seems unlikely that a demon would be the one to discover him in such a vulnerable state—bloodied, weakened, and seemingly at the end of a fierce battle. The timing of this man’s arrival—just as we uncover Cain's darker nature—is too precise to be coincidental.

As a philologist, plotwise, him being Abel would certainly make sense in the context of the story's themes—of survival, moral conflict, and the struggles between heavenly and demonic forces in a world devastated by apocalyptic events. His return could add a layer of depth to the ongoing narrative, representing a force of justice or redemption against Cain's darker tendencies.

Moreover, if this mysterious character were simply a demon hunter, his appearance might lack the same emotional and thematic weight. However, as Abel, his presence would be deeply significant and would make great storytelling. He would embody not just a force of opposition against Cain, but a figure who brings moral complexity and personal stakes to the narrative. He could even represent vengeance, adding layers to the conflict between good and evil in a world ravaged by apocalyptic forces.

With all that being said, if he ends up being a demon hunter or something completely different, I'd really like to see a compelling reason for it. Something that works as a plot device that deepens it even more. Since Alexandra is doing an amazing job with HSR, I don't doubt her, she'll excel at it!!!

[blackflash9]

Arno vs Shay: What Everyone Gets Wrong

The desire to see an Arno vs. Shay confrontation is a deeply misguided sentiment I've seen from the AC community. It harms both characters' integrity, individual stories, and the more prominent themes they represent. While the community may be drawn to the idea of pitting these two protagonists against each other, such a conflict would not only undermine the complexity of their narratives but also ignore the thematic significance of their character arcs—particularly the exploration of fanaticism, disillusionment, and the deconstruction of power and freedom.

First and foremost, the idea of Arno and Shay as a revenge story imposes a false and conventional binary of "hero vs. villain," which is entirely counterproductive to the nuanced storytelling that defines both Assassin’s Creed Unity and Assassin’s Creed Rogue. Arno’s journey is not one of blind loyalty to the Assassin Brotherhood or of revenge, and Shay’s defection to the Templars is not born out of a simplistic villainous turn. Both characters grapple with the fanaticism of their respective factions, and both reject extremism in their own ways. By forcing them into an artificial feud, their journeys of self-realization, moral conflict, regression, and growth are reduced to a superficial conflict that entirely misses the point of their arcs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thematic Dissonance and the Core Conflict of Unity & Rogue

The crux of Arno's story in Unity is deconstructing the Creed’s maxim about power and freedom. The backdrop of the French Revolution amplifies this, where ideals of liberty and justice quickly devolve into cycles of oppression. Arno’s journey is about recognizing the dangers of fanaticism and blind idealism—whether from the Assassins, the Templars, or the revolutionary factions around him. He witnesses firsthand how fervent belief in freedom or power can turn people into fanatics, like Germain, Pierre, or even Elise, whose personal quest for revenge becomes all-consuming.

Shay’s story in Rogue is also rooted in his rejection of fanaticism, precisely the Assassins' relentless pursuit of Pieces of Eden, which leads to unnecessary death and destruction. His disillusionment stems from seeing how the Assassins’ blind commitment to their ideals can create chaos, driving him to defect to the Templars. Shay believes that joining them can help maintain order and prevent further devastation.

However, Shay’s act of killing Charles Dorian, which devastates Arno’s life, reveals his lack of personal growth. The very thing that led him to abandon the Assassins— perceiving their willingness to use him as a pawn to destroy innocent lives in Lisbon—is mirrored in his allegiance to the Templars. He’s become what he once despised by serving their goals, blindly causing destruction in their name. In the end, Shay has simply traded one form of fanaticism for another, finding himself back where he started, trapped in the same cycle he once sought to escape that subconsciously regrets and knows he can't escape.

The thematic depth of their stories collapses by reducing these characters to a meaningless confrontation. Arno’s story in Unity is about rejecting fanaticism and finding balance, learning to break free from the destructive cycles of vengeance and self-blame that consume those around him. Arno’s ultimate lesson is to move forward, not be trapped by the past—a lesson he embodies when he fixes his father’s broken watch, symbolizing his commitment to embracing a new, forward-looking path. This is the culmination of his arc: not revenge, not loyalty to a flawed creed, but the personal growth that comes from rejecting extremism in all its forms.

For Shay, who believes the Assassins are too fanatical and destructive, a direct conflict with Arno would only reinforce the false dichotomy between Assassin and Templar rather than acknowledging the nuanced reasons behind his choices. Shay is not a villain; he’s a broken man whose attempts to prevent more destruction result in him becoming manipulated for it due to being trapped in his past and unable to move forward. What Everyone Gets Wrong:

Ultimately, Shay and Arno's journeys reflect two sides of the same battle with fanaticism, yet their fates diverge dramatically from the Assassin’s Creed itself. Arno ultimately embodies the true spirit of the Creed, learning the dangers of rigid ideology and choosing his own path, rising above the tempting cycle of vengeance and destruction. Shay, on the other hand, fails to live by the Creed’s deeper wisdom. Despite rejecting the Assassins, he falls into the same trap of blind obedience, this time to the Templars, becoming a pawn in their quest for control. Where Arno succeeds in transcending, Shay remains ensnared—trapped in the fanaticism he sought to escape. There's no need for Arno to seek and "defeat" Shay. It's already happened.

[sir-adamus]

so

stipulations for Salem's immortality is that she will walk the face of the world until she 'learns the importance of life and death', as punishment for attempting to 'disrupt the balance' that the Brothers created

the Blacksmith establishes that the Brothers flat out don't understand what balance really is, which is why they clash constantly in contrast to how the Blacksmith shows that RWBY - finding equilibrium in their cooperation and patience with each other - represent true balance

in fact the contrast in approach between the Brothers and the Tree is very clear; the Brothers are at constant war with each other and deal out vengeful, punitive 'justice' instead of actually solving anything (bickering and breaking and repairing the Jabberwalker to spite each other and neither attempting to fix the problems with it. not even acknowledging or questioning why Salem wanted Ozma back and instead dismissing her, then throwing a tantrum when she proceeded to not do as she was told, resulting in global genocide and later hanging the threat over Oz's head that they'd do it again if the new humanity isn't up to their exacting standards).

meanwhile the Tree, through the Blacksmith, gives Ruby the space and reassurance she needs to stop running herself into the ground and start resolving her issues. it addresses the heart of the problem, for closure and resolution, with no judgment or pressure

so, message is clear - RWBY are gonna be key to stopping Salem for good by demonstrating something the Brothers could never hope to impart to her.

and obviously the Brothers will invariably get summoned down to Remnant, if not by Salem's hand then by Cinder's (she's vengeful enough that she'd be driven to try and end all of humanity just to one-up her enemies, let's be real); because the stipulation on Oz's immortality requires them to come back so he can finally die - and that's where they'll be challenged on the cosmic levels of bullshit they've left the universe in

i guess if you think about it, it all roots back to the Brothers not even understanding what they were made for and getting too big for their boots over it - the Tree doesn't judge, the Tree helps solve the heart of the issue to help people move on (though how successful that is, is up to them), to be better than they were, and judgment and punishment have no place in that. likewise, the Brothers weren't meant to judge, but they took their powers of Creation and Destruction to mean they were the arbiters over such things, and not part of the ecosystem - and therefore got it in their stupid featureless heads that they get to judge the worthiness of the living, and dole out disproportionate punishments in the face of even a modicum of defiance

and because of their failure to understand what real balance is, it's basically become a cycle that has been repeated throughout the course of Remnant's history - impatience and conflict, petty vengeance and spite. like almost every villain is acting to punish some perceived wrong inflicted on them instead of addressing their own issues (Salem vs the Brothers and Oz, Hazel vs Oz, Adam vs the world, Ironwood vs anyone who questions him, Cinder vs Ruby, Neo vs Ruby, the Cat vs Alyx and the Brothers)

Adam refused to walk away despite being given multiple chances to do so and kept going until the only option was to kill him (and his death didn't solve the problems he created). Ironwood refused to listen to any plan that wasn't his own to the point of actively sabotaging the plans of others and threatening to bomb defenseless civilians so that he'd get his way, until he was left to be literally crushed by the weight of his own city (and again, massive problems left in his wake). neither of their deaths are treated as a triumph within the narrative either

Neo's quest for vengeance destroyed her from the inside and she actually succeeded, reckoning with the hollowness she had left sent her completely catatonic - and that probably would've been the end for her, worn as a meatsuit by the Cat until they either disposed of her for no longer being useful or killed with the Cat by the team (because the Cat, like Adam, was past the point of reason and was refusing to give up). it's only Jaune getting the idea of using the leaves that frees Neo and it does that by jolting her into the self-reflection the Tree provides (and the Tree doesn't judge - it only tries to help), after which she chooses to let go of Roman and go to the Tree (there is her once again doling out punitive revenge by setting Jabberwalkers on the Cat but that's before she makes the decision to Ascend, which was after seeing RWBYJ reunite - and two scenes later it's hammered in that RWBY represent the new, better way), Neo got a second chance to stop and choose to get help because the Tree itself ended up involved, and that was followed by the show making that statement on the ideals of balance, which i guess fits with that one post Eddy made following volume 9 about the idea of eucatastrophe, the turning point in a story where it's clear that despite reaching its darkest point, things turn out for the better and that there's going to be a happy ending - so it remains to be seen if the Brothers will be convinced to self-reflect or if they'll stick to their shitty guns and escalate the conflict