#and especially morally questionable characters

[fatalism-and-villainy]

There is so much richness to Julian Bashir’s character and he adds so much to the fabric of DS9 as a show, and it’s unfortunate to me that so many summations of his character - I’m thinking especially of relatively mainstream critical venues, though sometimes in fandom as well - downplay or ignore his thematic significance, and contextualize his character only through either the homoerotic potential of his dynamic with Garak or the development of his friendship with Miles O’Brien.

It’s odd to me as well, because so many fans and critics praise DS9 for its willingness to be critical of the Federation and of Starfleet, and yet I see relatively little acknowledgment of how much of that criticism is accomplished through the character of Bashir (alongside, of course, Sisko). His infamous “frontier medicine” line is the very first example - it completely upends the ethos on which Star Trek rests, and it’s placed in his mouth. That matters, given that that he is set up as a character who believes in the utopia in which he grew up, and whose altruism is well-intentioned but shown to be naïve. That’s why he’s paired with Sisko in Past Tense, in which he’s shocked by the injustices of the past; it’s why we have episodes like The Quickening, which demonstrates without a doubt that his heroic impulses are good and worthwhile, but need to be tempered by humility.

And two of the arcs that are the most sharply critical of the Federation - namely, the augment thread and the Section 31 subplot - both centre Bashir. That’s not an accident. Those arcs raise all manner of questions related to institutional corruption and self-protection, the narrow standards of normalcy in Federation society, disposability and unpersonhood, the degree to which moral standards can be stretched for the greater good (similar questions to those raised by In the Pale Moonlight), etc.

Broadly speaking, Bashir’s arc centres on the awakening of innocence to experience, and about the process of becoming disillusioned with one’s ideals, but, simultaneously, the catalysts of that process only serving to emphasize the continued importance of those ideals. (Not to mention the fine line between heroism and self-aggrandizement and status-seeking). The dynamics with Garak and O’Brien are enjoyable, and sometimes thematically relevant along some of these lines, but he has so much going on in his own right, and that deserves to be recognized.

[wisteria-lodge]

I really do not want to discredit JKR, she created a fantastic world, with great ideas etc and I hate to be like "oh her success was just an accident!" especially to a woman. But that's what I feel about her getting praise for Snape. People say that the fact that there's so much debate about him now is a testament of JKR's writing skills, but on the contrary I think there is much debate about him now because she executed his character badly...or at least not in the level of genius I see her get praised for. I have always felt this way even before her views but I hate saying it now bc it'll come off as "revisionist" or something 😭 imo the fans have interpreted, analyzed, and broken down his character better.

JKR's success was absolutely not an accident. She dusted off and revitalized the dead School Story genre, she clicked things together in proportions that made a lot of sense, she's VERY good at marketing both herself and her work, she understands (and polices) brand identity and always has, she understands franchise potential, she made the *very* smart decision to age her series up along with her core fan base... but. This did create a few issues with the actual text.

There is a LOT of ambiguity in the Harry Potter series. Lines, scenes, entire characters (Snape is the poster boy, but not even close to the only one) that can legitimately be read in vastly different ways. And not Game of Thrones "oh this is a morally grey character in a complex situation." It's more like "you can interpret what is literally happening in this scene in about three different ways."

I see this ambiguity coming from two main sources, which are honestly kind of unique to the Harry Potter series.

The "Three Year Summer" Shift.

Books 1-3 are kids books, written like kids books, and Books 5-7 are young adult books, written like young adult books. It's not a new take that there are a lot of worldbuilding details and characterization choices that make perfect sense in a kid's book, but not if you're going for the added complexity and grounded tone of an adult book. Filtch is fine as a one-line joke comic villain, but if you're treating him as a fully realized person who actually exists in a more grounded sort of world - he becomes terrifying, tragic, and actually starts creating plotholes. It's like how Willy Wonka is whimsical in his own universe... but if you were to move him to one that's less stylized, now he's Julian Slowik from The Menu.

This leads to a backwards-compatibility situation where you're taking the "adult book" versions of the characters and trying to make them fit over the "children's book" character's actions. Often, the fit isn't super clean. So, you interpret these children's book scenes to make it fit - and you CAN, because children's book scenes are short, use simple vocab, and don't generally give you a *ton* of extra information. Why not interpret them with adult subtext? It's not contradicting anything. But it is essentially a version of that "open scene" acting class game where you get a scene that's like:

- What’s that? - My latest project. - It looks very interesting. - Well, I think so.

and then two actors run it though first straightforward, then sarcastic, then angry, then longing, etc.

2. Harry Potter is a mystery novel serial.

This is where a ton of the structure of the Harry Potter series comes from. Who opened the Chamber of Secrets? (we have suspects and clues) What is the monster? Who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire? (we have suspects and clues) How is Sirius Black getting into the castle? Who is the Halfblood Prince? Who is Snape loyal to? Like there are TONS of these questions (especially in the better books...)

And they make the books fun! They made speculating between the books a TON of fun. Buut.... suspects in a mystery story HAVE to be written ambiguously, or they're not very good suspects. The point is to have a scene that seems super suspicious on a first read but is actually completely innocent, and vice versa. So the scenes themselves fundamentally have to be written to support multiple meanings, in order to make the magic trick work. But the problem IS that in order to do that... you have to sacrifice cleanly articulated character development. There's a reason, in serial detective novels, that the detective goes to a new place and meets a new group of people every book. Ex-suspects have trouble going on to serve new functions in the plot, because who are they exactly? The point is that we don't know.

Lots of Harry Potter characters get hit by "suspect effect." In Book 3, Sirius Black is written to be a dangerous red herring (like why DID he slash the Fat Lady's portrait, in retrospect?) and in Book 4 he's this positive (but ultimately misguided) mentor whose function is to shift suspicion off of Moody and Barty Junior. So when we meet him in Book 5... and he no longer has a structural narrative role... who is he exactly? In a lot of ways, it's up to you the reader, and how you interpreted books 3 and 4.

Or Remus and Tonks. Their relationship is treated as a "mystery" in Book 5. So we get the reveal, but we don't get to see it develop. Because every time the relationship comes up, it needs to be discussed in a way that Harry can misunderstand. As a result, we don't get a good sense of what the dynamics of their relationship actually are.

And Snape... he's the red herring in Book 1, he's "up to something" in Book 3, a red herring again in Book 4, AGAIN in book 5 and 6. Which means. That is there is at least one alternate way to interpret pretty much every single thing that man says by design. So of course there are going to be multiple ways to interpret his motives. Snape the literary equivalent of the face/vase optical illusion... only you have Word of God saying "it's for sure a vase."

[sha-brytols]

i have a question feel free not to answer but i promise it's not in bad faith. i agree with u with just about everything in dragon age and respect your opinions, but ive been an aveline hater for sooo long. i see your points about the misogyny which i think is the number one #anti aveline thing people point out, but i was wondering your takes on some of the others, like her guard favoritism, rejecting carver from the guard despite his job insecurity and not throwing out the records of fenris squatting in hightown? do you think it's like, a control thing? i admit ive been in a bit of an echo chamber and never heard someone talk about that that wasnt coming from already hating aveline. i can appreciate a morally grey character for sure, but i think her "my hands are tied" centrism always irked me more than isabela and varric's more carefree and charismatic outlooks

i get it LOL fandom has a tendency of influencing personal bias to an extreme and it's hard to see past the echo chambers. i think this is what causes characters like sebastian or sera to get such extreme levels of hate despite people very rarely actually interacting with them in game or making an effort to understand their perspectives. i don't think disliking aveline is bad, but i do think the disproportionate hate she receives compared to the other companions is like. silly. They're All Bad People.

so bioware writes women, ESPECIALLY women who don't conform to stereotypically feminine traits and roles (read: female warriors) very poorly, and i think that's really important to keep in mind in meta discussions because it does absolutely play a key role in how "palatable" they are. a lot of aveline's personality is directly informed by this odd insistence on making her a big scary unattractive Mannish brute, because the writers have no concept of femininity outside of soft and gentle and sexy. and i say this because this plays a huge role in her characterization as a big authority figure who Does Not Take Your Shit. it's one of those things that makes meta analysis very difficult because i feel like there isn't a single part of her character design or writing that wasn't affected by it (for both good and bad) and people tend to take it for granted.

like, we Know anders' characterization as the creepy possessive borderline-stalker guy is directly informed by jennifer hepler's bias against bipolar disorder. it absolutely works as a character trait and it IS an important part of him, but it's still important to acknowledge just how Caricaturized the whole thing is and how much of that is narratively purposeful and how much of that is hepler's own lack of empathy for the disorder. that's the way i see aveline's writing. bioware thinks "masculine" women are abrasive and unattractive, therefore they give aveline the most severe personality in the whole game. because that's just what women like that Are Like, according to bioware.

i keep fucking writing harvard essays in response to these asks i'm so fuckgjfnd sorry. more under the cut.

but you know like. from a watsonian perspective i think that just speaks more to her insecurity than it does to her as a person in the story. i talked about it before, but a big aspect of aveline's character is how she's been constantly at the mercy of people who were meant to be her leaders, people she was expected to follow without question, only for those people to misuse or even outright abuse their power. loghain abandoning everyone at ostagar cost her her home, her husband, her friends, everything she ever had. she comes to kirkwall with this newfound sense of "i will never let that happen again," which makes her very protective and overbearing. we can tell by her attitude with hawke and the other guards that she considers all of her people her Family and she refuses to compromise their safety for anything. they trust her, they rely on her. she won't be another loghain or another jevan.

it's not by any means a positive trait. it's both her greatest strength and her greatest flaw. she cares too much about the people she's responsible for and happily sacrifices the good of everyone else in favor of her own comfort without even realizing. and who does that remind you of?

our own protagonist is among the most important and powerful people in the game, and the whole narrative is essentially built on hawke bending and breaking every law they possibly can to keep their own family as comfortable and safe as possible, even at the cost of others. she's hawke's parallel. she forces the player to reflect on how easy it is to say you're a good person and you want to help everyone when you have the means and the power to actually make a change, but how quickly that self-assurance goes out the window the second you actually have to make the tough calls. it takes hawke 9 literal years to even Feebly voice their public support between the mages and templars, and they spend the entire game flip flopping between working for one's interests and then the other's because of that refusal to actually take a stance and commit to their morals. you can headcanon your hawke as the Radical Revolutionary but that isn't the character we see in game. we see the person who's too afraid of confrontation and losing the fragile stability they've built for themselves to actually stand up for what's right until their hand is forced. that's the position aveline is in.

this is one of those things where i keep saying people should rival characters more. all those traits you hate in aveline are the ones that become challenged through hawke's constant rejection of her authority, and what makes the rivalry routes so fascinating is how they give you a unique insight as to Why your companions are the way that they are. all these things i've mentioned aren't just excuses for why she's like this. it's all in her rivalry route! she's terrified, insecure, she has no idea what she's doing, she feels completely alone in a city where she has to constantly prove herself, and this causes her to overcompensate in the only avenue where she actually has a modicum of control.

as for the stuff with carver and fenris. i think people tend to look at those with very narrow lenses and fail to see them within their context. like, the stuff with carver is pretty easy. that isn't even an issue of favoritism or corruption, it's a matter of "the guy who i know for a fact is a hotheaded kid with authority problems only wants to be a guard to feel important and i'm not putting someone like that in a position of power." you can disagree with that assessment, but she didn't just reject carver out of nowhere, she knows him well and is well aware of the fact that he has a massive inferiority complex. like, i think it's silly that carver is seen as this innocent victim in that situation for being turned down as guard, when most of the time these same people who condemn her for it also hate her specifically because she's a guard LOL. if you dislike how aveline handles her authority, how do you think CARVER would handle it? his templar path to me seems like proof enough that he only sees these positions as avenues for validation and isn't actually fully prepared for what these positions actually Entail

and for fenris. people misunderstood that banter i think LOL. first of all, people mix up her banter about fenris squatting with banter about formal complaints about him. it was the latter she didn't throw out, and this is only after you finish her quest where you help her expose the previous captain's corruption. she's the guard captain. the complaints go to no one else but her. all she's doing is proving that she isn't going to be the next jevan. plus, i think this gets overinflated a lot LOL her and fenris are like two of the most amicable party members. she changes patrols around his mansion to give him some peace of mind, she warns him when he's drawing too much attention to himself. i don't think it's a fair assessment at aaaall to say aveline is somehow neglecting or endangering fenris, because it's literally the exact opposite. she protects all of her friends, even the Fucking Abomination Who Does Nothing But Antagonize Her LOL

this got long. erm. teehee. it's not a big deal if you don't like aveline LOL i mean we all have our favorites and least favorites and it's not like i expect everyone to love her. i just feel like these opinions Are sometimes worthy of reflection. do you give the other companions the same scrutiny? are you really judging her on her own merit or are you judging her on the purity test we tend to subconsciously apply to female characters in general, even if it's a subconscious thing? like i could try to name the amount of male characters in dragon age that share the same flaws as her and it would end up an even bigger post than this LOL. do you like gorim? duncan? sten? what makes aveline so much less sympathetic than them? that's all. and if it does turn out to just be a taste thing then i obviously can't brainwash you into loving a character LOL

if you somehow read this whole thing you are braver than any us soldier. here's the funniest picture of ricky i have in my album.

[midnight--sadness]

oh my god finally someone bringing up how misogynistic and pro-life the whole shebang felt. i guess hdh had shown those inclinations since s2 with inho's backstory being a dead pregnant wife, the story focusing so much on junhee and her pregnancy (from a writing standpoint her entire character is just Pregnant Woman who is Pregnant), 246's character being having a sick daughter, etc.

s3 cranked it up to 11 with every non-complete psychopath character (+ inho) becoming brain dead and obsessed with the baby, junhee dying almost immediately after giving birth (and still not getting more character development aside from going from a Pregnant Woman to a Postpartum Woman), geumja killing her own son and then killing herself with her entire words being about the baby, and noeuls entire character.

noeul's character is just plain offensive tbh, being reduced to her having lost a child (until all of a sudden it's magically found lmao) and getting obsessed with this random sick girl she'd seen once, to the point where a) it's heavily implied she'd joined the game again for the random sick girl, b) her actress says her sole purpose in life is to be with her child, c) she risks her life and kills a bunch of people for a random guy she'd seen exactly once just because he's the father of said sick girl, d) she's ready to kill herself when she thinks this random baby will die but doesn't when it lives. oh, and also she gets sexually harassed the only times she interacts with anyone who isn't masked manager or 246. i just...?

by s3 the only female characters not defined by having anything to do with children are hyunju (and i suspect her being trans therefore not being able to bear children was the only thing that stopped hdh) and seonnyeo (basically a comic relief character), both of whom get killed off as soon as possible.

s2 at the very least had youngmi and semi, although semi's character (and especially the way it was handled in s3) is questionable even without the pro-life shit. she's literally there to be a manic pixie dream girl to minsu and gets killed in a disturbingly graphic manner by a guy who calls her a bitch, a whore, and a fucking cunt, and her role in s3 is reduced to minsu's manic pixie dream girl hallucination.

compared to s1 which had saebyeok, minyeo (who were both on the receiving end of in-universe misogyny too but somehow were very nuanced and complex characters, with minyeo's death being one of my favorite due to it being a perfect conclusion to her character arc) and jiyeong? insane to think about.

wish someone would've reminded hwang that he is not aronofsky and this is not mother! 2017 with jlaw. this is squid game and it's always been about exploring the nature of the system we live in as well as the nature of humanity and the choices people make.

agreeing to join the games, coming back to play (s1), continuing to play or not (s2), resisting (gihun) or succumbing (sangwoo, inho), having faith (gihun) or not (ilnam, inho). it's not like family was not factored in, quite the opposite? everything related to hwang brothers, gihun joining the games for his mother, gihun trying to take care of his daughter despite not having the means to, sangwoo not being able to face his mom after what he did, saebyeok joining the games for her brother, ali for his family. the commentary on the relationships between parents and children and siblings was there.

how did we go from that to that entire twilight baby circus with the show simultaneously shitting on everything it developed before? gihun kinda forgetting about his daughter because living for her isn't worth it, inho kinda forgetting he cared for his brother enough to give him a liver transplant, save his life at the end of s1 and subsequently protect him from the reality inho lives in and ordering him killed because yolo (and then completely ignoring him during their 5 second interaction), inhun forgetting about their moral conflict that dated back to gihun and ilnam. all to give spotlight to a crudely shoved in baby = humanity plot line? losing my mind LOSING MY MIND i'm telling you.

(oh, and let's not forget that inho's entire speech from s1 about games being first and foremost fair, the rules that were supposed to be strictly enforced due to that very fairness and all the important moments related to said rules, ie s2's voting system, s1's game being put on pause after sangwoo brought it up, s1's easily avoidable and heartbreaking finale with sangwoo having the opportunity to put a stop to the game and go with gihun and ending his life instead because he wouldn't be able to live with himself after, etc can all get pissed on because now rules will be made up and canceled on the spot, won't matter, and also the entire point which is that people consented to being in the games and actively chose to continue to participate will be rendered void just to make the baby plot work. 👍)

me reading this

anon, u perfectly summed up my feelings abt this season.

all of these interesting, complex female characters dying so that we could have an all-male final game, where 5/9 of them are nameless players and the other one is fucking player 100.

i'm not saying that junhee couldn't want her baby, of course she could. she has no parents and no partner, i'm sure that baby was a way for her to finally have a family of her own.

even hyunju had a b-side plot abt motherhood but i can excuse that one. it's important to her as a trans character and the actor has spoken how hyunju felt watching the birth and the bathroom scene in s2.

also, yeah the rules changing all of a sudden was so strange lol

[linkons-most-wanted]

While my friend and I were talking about Sylus and MCs' moral (and legal) leanings, it came up that while Sylus isn't necessarily 'good' by the standard definition, he certainly is honorable, and then it devolved into what 'honor' is for someone like Sylus. It's interesting how that works out for both his job (mostly illegal and morally grey) and his relationship with MC. Your thoughts?

(We'd rejoice if there's going to be a meta about this 😇)

Oooh yes I love this question! And it's your lucky day, 'cause this one got long! 🤣 here we go...

Subjective morals

I have sort of a funny relationship with the term "morally grey" because a lot of the time, in my personal morals, I interpret their actions as morally good but technically illegal. 🤣 A lot of laws are actually pretty cruel and unfair, and that's part of what can make morally grey characters so appealing. I think it is morally right to subvert and break laws that are unjust. (But not everybody does.)

For example, consider safe injection site programs. These provide fresh needles and safe areas to addicts in order to reduce the chances of them ODing, contracting disease, or otherwise dying. A lot of people "morally" believe these sites are bad because they "encourage" drug use. In reality, these sites make people more likely to quit because they're able to get the rest of their life stabilized and then access addiction resources.

If your morals say that helping people recover is most important, safe injection sites are morally good! If your morals say that all "crimes" must be "punished", then you'll think they're morally bad.

Morals get messy and morally grey characters point a big blinking arrow at this.

Honor among thieves.

"Honor among thieves" is a beloved trope because it allows us to feel safe (this person DOES have boundaries, there ARE lines they won't cross) at the same time as getting to see them break rules (which feels thrilling and freeing).

Society tends to condition femmes and women into compliance even far beyond the law, to the point that even saying something "rude" feels forbidden. (I put "rude" in quotes because often, something as simple as stating that you don't want to do something is considered "rude".)

I am not nice

Which leads to a second key aspect of the morally grey archetype, which is that while they may be compassionate they are not nice. They get to tell people to fuck off. They get to assert themselves. They get to do/be a lot of the things that society does not allow women to do/be.

One of my fave dark romance authors (Nenia Campbell) talks about how liberating compliments and kindness from "mean" men can be, because you know they're not just doing it to be nice or avoid hurting your feelings. You can believe them because you know they wouldn't say it unless they thought it.

This hints at how here's a fundamental honestly to moral grayness. Everybody wants something they "shouldn't", but only some people are honest about it. This is an explicit theme in Sylus's content, especially in Beyond Cloudfall when he and MC talk about how following their true desires makes them the only two of their kind.

Boundaries

Anyway, what honor ultimately comes back to is boundaries. What are the lines you won't cross? When a character crosses lines others don't (such as being unhesitating in killing people who threaten them) the lines they don't cross are given even more weight and meaning. It's a really interesting way to bring extra attention to those boundaries.

I feel like it's worth mentioning Ned Stark in Game of Thrones as a contrast. Here's a character that is fully committed to a certain code of honor, and it ends up fucking over his whole family. Honor can't magically protect you, and morally grey characters know that.

In fact, it can be really refreshing to see a morally grey character refuse to cross a line even when they know it's going to hurt them. It makes those lines seem way more important.

We see this from Sylus when he agrees to leave MC alone in Razor's Dance. He's willing to kill, but he's not willing to force his presence on someone who genuinely doesn't want it. That screams loud and clear to the audience, "what you want REALLY matters. it is ACTUALLY very important."

Ego and motivation

We hear from Sylus repeatedly, "violence must be used strategically." It's a little tongue in cheek at times, but ultimately he holds to it. He doesn't cut someone down at the slightest insult--but he also doesn't hesitate if they're threatening someone he cares about.

He also specifically says--and consistently demonstrates--that he doesn't like picking on the weak. There's no challenge in that, no interest. It proves nothing. So there's no point, unless you're sadistic. (And not that Sylus doesn't have a sadistic streak, he'd just rather explore that in a much more fun way. 😏)

I think we see a lot of his honor in things like Radiant Brilliance, where he craves a fair challenge. He's willing to set aside parts of his power and lose because it's interesting. It makes him stronger in more ways. He doesn't over-rely on any one skill--he's interested in getting better at whatever he can get better at.

What goodness remains?

For me, what these juxtapositions point at is that people are fundamentally cooperative, and that the "true" villains are the ones that repeatedly betray this cooperation. (Ever, capitalist ghouls, etc.) Even a crime family naturally values things like trust, mutual support, loyalty, togetherness. You can have extremely toxic families, for sure, but a lot of fictional crime families are actually pretty wholesome.

We can look at Luke and Kieran and see that Sylus's actions towards them are very caring, even if he's stoic about it. It's a refreshing contrast to many "good" people who make lots of promises but then don't follow through on them. (Consider the popular politician who's secretly taking bribes and cheating on his wife.)

It's interesting to ask, why NOT kill anyone who looks at you funny? Well, it'd kind of suck. Life is made fuller by our bonds and our friendships. Even when you're doing whatever it takes to survive in a cruel world, what's the point if you don't have people you can trust? Morally grey characters point us towards those questions.

They also point at choice. This person isn't kind to me because they know it will look bad if they aren't. They don't care what it looks like. (Sylus carrying MC through the mall 🥹) They are doing it because they want to.

If you're someone who does a lot out of obligation, it's easy to fear that others are only kind to you out of obligation. Morally grey characters subvert this fear.

Autonomy as sacred

Sylus does what he wants--which includes both ignoring laws that he thinks are dumb, and also pursuing meaningful, deep relationships. Humans contain both great selfishness and great selflessness. To get a little Jungian about it, we could see Sylus as a character who represents the "shadow" or "id"--all the desires that the "Ego" (which is calibrated by society, how we were raised, etc) deem dangerous and not-allowed. This is all but explicit in his characterization.

The thing is, the desires of the id aren't actually inherently bad. Take wanting attention, for example. "Oh you're just doing X for attention." Well, attention is a fundamental human need. Babies understand that if they're not getting attention, their lives are literally at risk. That can stick with us for a long time. Morally grey characters invite us to ask, is that really bad? Is that really something we should be avoiding?

Obviously, killing anyone who gets in your way doesn't make sense in the real world--the N109 zone is specifically set up to offer this exaggerated environment where the stakes are life and death.

But I can say from experience, just saying "no" to something you feel obligated to do can feel as bad as murder. (And I was literally raised to believe that it IS--the whole thing that "all sins are equal" is often used to shame people for completely normal and even healthy reactions!)

So part of what is so refreshing about Sylus's willingness to murder under certain circumstances is it symbolically represents the freedom of living boldly--of being honest about what you do and don't want, of exercising your autonomy.

And what a romance tells is us that doing these things can bring you closer to the people who matter, even if other people shun you. Our nervous systems deeply fear shunning because it's not so long ago that being shunned likely meant starving to death. And that's why found family is SO important to these stories.

Cruelty and mercy

I think for Sylus, the most explicit he gets in talking about his honor code is when he shares bits of his thoughts on cruelty and mercy. A quick death can be merciful--and, as he and Sorceress MC not in Beyond Cloudfall, the best way to make someone suffer is to keep them alive.

As I type this, I have the app open and Sylus just said his bit about how humans are fascinating because their capacity for cruelty far surpasses that of animals.

When animals fight to survive, they aren't cruel. They don't take extra joy in the suffering of others. A cat may play with its food, but it's because it doesn't really understand what it's doing.

Sylus is often compared to a wild animal--powerful, primal, but not cruel. Interestingly, when he offers in Beyond Cloudfall to raise the dead for Sorceress MC, we learn that he could have done this for his own satisfaction. He could have raised and then tormented the people who trapped him in the abyss. But he didn't. They were dead, and therefore not a threat, and therefore not worth spending energy on.

Humans, with our capacity for self-awareness and complex social dynamics, are able to be truly cruel--to inflict suffering for suffering's sake. Even this I don't think is "evil" in and of itself (there are no thought crimes) when someone is aware of the impulse and channels it in a way that it doesn't do harm to others (such as through kink).

So, while I think it would be perhaps missing the point to say that Sylus never has cruel desires, his actions are never cruel.

In conclusion

So, this ended up kind of being about honor, kind of not! 🤣 I think that's because focusing too much on an honor-code sort of misses the point of these characters--which is to break away from black-and-white definitions of right and wrong. We could imagine Sylus admitting that he's overreacted at times. He might not lose sleep over it, but he'd likely be more patient the next time, because ultimately he still cares about building trust with the people important to him.

Morally grey characters challenge strictly held beliefs about "right" and "wrong", inviting us into greater nuance. Maybe it depends on the context of the crime. Maybe it WAS a mistake but there's redemption. Maybe fiction is a way to let yourself want the "bad" thing without doing it IRL and dealing with the consequences, adding another meta layer to everything. (Sylus and blowing up buildings, lmao.)

Maybe protecting your family is more important than following unjust laws. Maybe honesty is more important than being liked by other people. Maybe it's better to make a mistake and then apologize than to suffocate yourself pursuing perfection. Maybe we don't have to be selfless all the time--maybe generosity and greed can exist in balance and tension with each other.

Maybe moral goodness is a lot less important than closeness, connection, trust, self-honesty, growth, loyalty, forgiveness, acceptance, and love.

[fantastic-nonsense]

Hi! Since you write meta about both DC and SOC, I was wondering if you think there are some more parallels between Dick and Inej, besides the surface level stuff? (Ties to Romani identity, growing up in an acrobat/performer family and losing it horrifically at a young age, athletic skills and flexibility mostly due to their upbringing). I feel like there's something more to be said about them both being the "heart" of their perspective groups and their shared morals/values I can't really articulate. Do you think they would get along/understand each other, despite Inej being a criminal?

Hi! Thanks for the question.

Personally, I don't actually see very many parallels between Dick and Inej at all other than the surface parallels you've already mentioned; I don't think Dick actually has a very good parallel with any one person in the SOC crew tbh. I think they would get along fine, and I certainly think there is an opportunity for them to bond over their somewhat similar backgrounds and skillsets, but I don't really see a lot of specific character/narrative parallels.

Inej is a lot more morally ambiguous than many fans tend to acknowledge; I think that because many people see her as "the most moral Crow" they translate that into "she's an objectively moral person." But Inej ends the duology in a romantic relationship with Kaz Brekker and as a pirate enacting bloody vigilante justice against slavers on the high seas (with a stated mission of tearing down the entire economic status quo of Ketterdam). She's made a lot more peace with her own moral flexibility and the methods realistically necessary to achieve her mission than people give her credit for, I think.

In my mind, Inej is far more similar to Helena Bertinelli than someone like Dick, especially given the deep connections both Inej and Helena have to their faith, their morals and perspectives on killing and revenge, their backstory-relevant desire to protect vulnerable women and children, their intimate connections to the criminal underworld, the way they view their titles (Wraith and Huntress) as a death/rebirth of their self-identity, and their desires to rise above and be better than who they were forced to become due to their trauma. I think she would get along fine with Dick, of course, but I think she would see far more of herself and her own story in Helena.

[loycos]

Caitlyn, PB and RQ are 3 of my favorite characters ever. And yes, the character named "Princess Bubblegum" is actually more morally grey than Caitlyn. Caitlyn is a morally good person who made questionable decisions. Bubblegum is much more dubious in morality. Not a bad person in my opinion, as she never wished to harm anyone, but her scientific curiousity and need for control made her see the people around her as subjects more than people, at times. A facsinating character. And yes. She is kind of a war criminal. And not the fake made up kind like they make Caitlyn be.

Rose Quartz is a masterclass in telling a character arc in reverse. She's closer morally to Caitlyn, especially at the end of her life. She was an idealist stuck between a rock and a hard place, and had to make some rough decisions. They had relatively similar upbringing too, being "children of royality", but Rose's arc is about learning responsibility, something Caitlyn never sturggled with. I know memeing on SU is common but its a very good show, i recommend people watch it.

I think it's funny the original post mentions Caitlyn but doesnt mention Jinx, tho. Even within Arcane Caitlyn's actions are minor compared to much more fucked up female characters they have, but when it's time to discuss the "morally questionable female characters" she's always the first to be brought up.

Like Jinx killed multiple innocents just by being an unstable teenager with a gun. People want to talk about the gas with Caitlyn, but it strictly didnt kill anyone, and the only damage it does is by long exposure, were talking years of exposure. Even if some innocent people did cough up some gas (which weve never seen but lets roll with it), it couldnt be longer than a few days to a few weeks, when the operation was going. If u smokes a cigarette for 3 weeks and then stopped you're not gonna die on lung cancer. Be fucking for real. Its still a bad thing she did, but no life was lost to her direct actions, unlike the unstable teenager with a minigun.

Also OP talking about "taking accountability" for FICTIONAL CHARACTERS bro tell me youre 14 without telling me youre 14. I like my ladies cause they provide fun juice to my brain and i smash them around like barbie dolls. Get a life.

(Edit: i cant help but notice all the 3 mentioned female characters are or were romantically involved with other women. Interesting)

SOME people gotta understand that part of understanding a complex character (yes I'm looking at you "complex female characters defender"), is admitting that they did something wrong, atrocities even. Rose quartz, princess bubblegum, caitlyn kiramman, fucking miguel o hara.

A part of understanding their character, is admitting they did something wrong. Defending them all the way is just not it, they did something wrong and presumably their backstory or character arc makes up for it, not justify completely.

So defend the character, sure, but did they commit war crimes? Yes.

[wow-an-unfunny-joke]

My English teacher asked me ‘do you think the antoganist can be a hero’ and I don’t think she was prepared for the ESSAY (like two paragraphs) I wrote

[silverspleen]

STUPID SHIP MEME DRAWINGS.

I just think they should kiss maybe?

Obsessed (positive??) with the dynamic of guy who betrays his country so he can run off with the militia he's been working with because he gets a case of loyalty feelings so bad he goes and blows himself up X morally upstanding traumatic backstory woman having the worst fucking time of her life (again) who really just needs someone to be as fanatically loyal as possible to her, as a person who is really into the inherent eroticism of the hierarchical military power dynamic focus on loyalty and the use of "yes ma'am" as I love you.

Obsessed (negative) with the propaganda implications that we seem to have ignored of the fact that the three most important people in an arabic woman's life are 2 (two) white guys and her brother, who betrays her and becomes a villain in the later games, and the fucking insidious-ass narrative choice of placing one of said white guys in said militia as like, the tacit fact that this organization is ok only because the western white guys are cool with it. Stop introducing more ULF people just to kill them!!! I SEE YOU WRITERS!!! YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM ME!!!!!!

because, once again, the character dynamic? I am sick for it. He dropped a building on himself for her and then came back???? He came back???? He could have gone anywhere but he came back to her???? I'm unwell. I think I have covid. I need to go lie down.

Anyway my city now my characters now smashing them together like barbies watching that .gif of them staring at each other eighty times reading all the fanfiction goodbye

you shouldn't blow yourself up in the furnace I want to blow myself up in the furnace for you as my own personal choice and you should order me to do it because you're such a good leader what is wrong with youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh *gnaws on furniture*

WE DON'T EVEN GET TO SEE HIM COME BACK TO HER. THANK YOU FIC WRITERS YOU KNOW THAT REUNION MUST BE SO ANGST THE COMPLEX DYNAMIC OF SACRIFICING YOURSELF FOR SOMEONE AND MAKING IT OUT AND BACK TO THEM AGAIN!!!!!!! THE GUILT! THE YEARNING! THE LOYALTY! I AM GOING TO EXPLODE.

[shorthaltsjester]

i contain multitudes and can say that i am a little :( about vex and percy being teammates with benefits because i think there’s something particularly heartbreaking about the dynamic that was neither of them ever said a thing even though they both were aware of it and it took losing percy for vex to finally admit it and Even Then, she couldn’t say it to percy’s face when they got him back, percy was the one who had to make the first move (that they were both alive for at least) and he was only able to do that because he’d heard her confession, because he never would’ve thought otherwise. to be clear, i also very much enjoy the story being told, i think i just wish they’d maybe committed more significantly to This Is A Campaign-Inspired Story Rather Than A Retelling sooner in the show so that maybe there would be a bit more grounding or set-up for the storylines the narrative is focusing on (and i understand why they wouldn’t), because i think they’re doing very well with percy’s arc for example, because they started with focusing on his and keeping his beats mostly the same and that seems to be much the same case as some of his second wave of meaty character stuff has arrived. but with vex they’ve aimed for the same character beats but it doesn’t always feel as earned or really feel like much character at all; i think saundor particularly was a bit of an :/, since in the campaign it was really a catalyst for vex interrogating her role in the party and her morality and something she struggled to get over and that haunted her far beyond the walls of that tree, but in the show it hasn’t really had a clear impact on vex beyond the scope of the episode itself — syldor certainly has, but the challenge that saundor presented didn’t really have much weight beyond its moment. and obviously a large part of that’s also probably just, 7 protagonists and wanting to expand the perspectives to antagonists and give more room for side characters is a lot of things to cover. and, i say with love, perhaps a bit too ambitious for a 12 episode per season, ~22 minute runtime show if they want their characters to have the kind of depth that really makes campaign 1 shine the way it does.

[am-1-ty]

Ahaha Tilda Webber my beloved!! (Tilda Webber doodle on a magma)

Banshee girl: Agent of karma!!!

[lizajane2]

Ya'll ever miss certain characters in this show that you think about sitting through both seasons just to watch their scenes, only to realize how badly the writers fucked up?

This is why we can't have nice things

[mistyycowoa]

Confessing my sins to the internet because my irl friends don't know my tumblr

I'm actually a horrible friend and I don't plan to change :)

I'll be a good friend to anyone I actually like and I usually don't associate with people who I don't like, but sometimes there will be an occasional lonely (usually annoying) kid that follows me around. (They're lonely for a reason.) I kinda hate people who are loud literally all the time but I can hold my tongue and this kinda person just doesn't leave because they're not being told directly to leave.

What do I do? I talk to them only when I need them, I make unnecessarily mean comments as a joke, I point out their obvious flaws that I know they have a hard time changing, and all while they still follow me around like I'm not kinda bullying them.

Sometimes I'll treat them like an actual friend when I'm in a good mood, but if I'm not, then the unfortunate victim becomes my emotional punching bag. (I have ways to quickly fix my mood and this is completely unnecessary and I could distance myself until I feel better like how I do with actual friends.) I think this is like. Breadcrumbing? Anyways yeah, toxic shit.

If any of your "friends" treat you like this, they don't see you as a friend. If they leave you doubting if they like you or not, leave you doubting if you're actually friends, they probably don't see you as a friend. (because that's the case for me :3 )

I'm a horrible human being and I don't feel nearly as bad as I should about it :)

[peachdues]

why do you only write damsels in distress

fair question. I try not to, but I can see how that comes across. I don’t always think a female character needs to be a warrior to be strong.

That said, I have two fics on my phone where the FMC is not a damsel — but she’s also not good. Extremely morally gray/borderline a villain by circumstance.

The problem is that I write reader inserts. I don’t think morally questionable readers will go over well with the general audience.

[theprinceandthewitch]

Okay... now it's time to go back to my silly little game...

[elina-sakura]

I’m just going say it although the book of death/Shinigami’s powers is cool also the big idea of the gameplay;in a way is kinda useless mostly on the fact the culprit dies,i mean HOW ARE YOU GONNA GET A CLEAR TRUTH WITHOUT A CLEAR CONFESSION!!!,also it just made it worse now that there now a person mysteriously dies out of nowhere,but they managed to put it in storyline sooooooo

Yeah something to think about

I think maybe it has to do with since Shinigami is the God of Death, her power is going to have a connection over on death. But you bring up a good point that it isn’t exactly useful considering it makes exposing the criminals harder.

Until I remember in Chapter 0 after the first Mystery Labyrinth from a YouTube gameplay I watched, where Shinigami comments how Yuma is now free since the culprit is dead, which the YouTuber comments that wasn’t going to work because Zilch was meant to be dead from the start and they only ended up reaffirming that narrative the Peacekeepers were painting to begin with. And I was thinking to myself, ‘didn’t they already figured out that the Peacekeepers were in on the plan in the Mystery Labyrinth? So why did she think the Peacekeepers would let him go if they were planning to frame him anyway?’ And that led me to think really hard about this.

We know Shinigami has the flaws of lacking empathy and not understanding humans at times, since she is an immortal god. I think in her mind, since the culprit is gone, there would be no reason for the Peacekeepers to keep framing him. Plus, again thinking into Shinigami’s mind, I think she believed since the culprit was a murderer would mean they would probably kill more people in the future, so the real goal was to stop a growing threat from claiming more victims like before.

And the killing thing? I think it’s a way to deal the justice in the holder’s own hands, to off the culprits so they don’t keep harming people from the mysteries they made, or claiming anymore victims from their deeds. In Chapter 1, one of the culprit was a serial killer, who would have gone off to kill more people. And the other culprit could have technically become a serial killer himself since he admired the Nail Man so much. Plus, an innocent man was going to get framed and executed for the Nail Man’s crimes to keep up appearances, and seeing how the Priest was going along with the lie, basically implied he was okay letting an actual, innocent man die in his place. Then in Chapter 2, Kurumi gets framed for the crime, and since execution seems to be a thing, she could have been executed herself, all so the Peacekeepers can keep their lies and appearance in place.

Plus, we have seen that the Peacekeepers don’t necessarily care about justice unless it serves them (or the higher-ups like Yomi in this case). They are willing to cover up the mysteries to convenient themselves and get what they want. And considering they are the police force, therefore the handlers of justice in Kanai Ward, they are the only ones in power that can lock away the criminals in hand and bring justice. But because they are so corrupt and self-indulgent, they are more willing to let criminals go or turn a blind eye or fail to solve the case thoroughly. So the Book of Death is the only way to ensure not only are the criminals are properly dealt with, but also cut away the Mystery Labyrinths as well. Since Shinigami has noted that if the Mystery Labyrinth grew and remain, they would influence other people into becoming murderers or criminals that would create more Mystery Labyrinths as well. As it was theorized by Yakool-Foolio that Kanai Ward’s Ultimate Secret’s own Mystery Labyrinth is what most likely led to the city becoming more crime-filled and creating their own Mystery Labyrinths as well.

It’s also important to note that there are other corrupt officials out in the world like the Unified Government who wants to keep their own secrets hidden away to keep up appearances. So it wouldn’t be far-fetched if there were other corrupt forces like the Unified Government and the Peacekeepers who would keep things secrets for their own benefits. Plus, we learned in chapter five that Number One of the World Detective Organization that he is actually in charge of issuing criminals to be sent to the death penalties, as noted here by Shiut, so I think executions and death penalties are uncommon in the Master Detective Archives world. So it wouldn’t be such a big deal for criminals to just die, even if it is inhumane and cruel.

In conclusion, I think the Book of Death is really a tool used in order to bring about the end of the criminals that threatens peace for everybody and could potentially hurt people (people getting framed, the killers killing future victims, exploiting people, etc). Since there is the chance of corrupt police forces not willing to indulge justice as they should and will let the mysteries remain and therefore the criminals free, the Book of Death is a mean to make sure the criminals and mysteries are gone. It’s a morally grey story where it may not be morally right, but it is not morally wrong either with the circumstances at hand. I think that’s what the Book of Death’s intention are, and why Shinigami thinks the way she thinks.