#and morally grey lily

[ecstarry]

i think…. and i need u to bare with me here… that bartylily has the potential of manacled levels of angst

[dykedvonte]

Love that in New Vegas you can like personally and permanently fuck over your human companions:

You can destroy the Brotherhood of Steel which Veronica still considers her family despite their differences. On top of that you can kill Elijah and Christine, the latter not being necessary or beneficial to you at all.

You can set up Cass and take her to the Silver Rush to be killed by Jean-Baptiste. Which is extra cruel cause you can literally only do it by first getting her to sell out to the people who tried to kill her in the first place.

You can put more innocent blood on Boone’s hands and fuck with his head more by having him kill his former best friend who is the last person he is implied to have any sort of relationship with outside the Courier.

You can literally sell Arcade into slavery to the Legion in where his hatred for every single one of them is so strong he literally disembowels himself as a final fuck you and so he doesn’t have to spend one more second there.

Not to mention how you can just ignore ED-E, Lily, Rex and Raul’s issues leading them to live their relatively immortal lives full of hardships, unhappiness or inevitable slow deaths. Like it’s not cool but it’s really cool that the game lets you be really awful along with really good.

[bookwormangie]

I recently saw a post on tiktok about Neville as a potentially great chosen one if he had been picked, and I wanted to share my thoughts and rant a little because I don’t have much else to talk about, lol.

I believe ppl are missing a crucial point here. If Voldemort had targeted Neville instead of Harry, things would have played out very differently. Neville most likely wouldn’t have survived at all and wouldn’t have become "the Boy Who Lived."

Firstly, let’s discuss Snape. His role in Harry’s survival is massive. Snape’s love for Lily led him to ask Voldemort to spare her, and he then went to Dumbledore to beg for her protection. The Potters went into hiding, and Dumbledore cast the fidelius charm. Unfortunately, they were eventually betrayed by Peter. Since Snape wouldn’t have done this for the Longbottoms, they wouldn’t have gone into hiding (unless Dumbledore had been tipped off by someone else). This would have made it easier for Voldemort to find them.

Secondly, the protection Harry received from his mother’s sacrifice was unique. Lily’s choice to sacrifice herself for Harry created a magical protection that caused Voldemort’s curse to rebound, leading to his temporary downfall. This was possible because Voldemort gave her the choice to step aside. Alice and Frank, though loving and brave, wouldn’t have had the same opportunity to step aside for Neville. Snape wouldn’t have asked Voldemort to spare them, so Voldemort wouldn’t have given them a chance to step aside. As a result, Neville wouldn’t have received the same sacrificial protection, and Voldemort would have succeeded in killing him.

In short, if Voldemort had targeted Neville, the lack of Snape’s intervention and the absence of the Fidelius Charm and sacrificial protection would likely have led to the Longbottoms' deaths. Neville wouldn’t have become the boy who lived, and the wizarding world’s history would have been completely different.

I personally speculate that if Voldemort had succeeded in killing Neville, he might have then turned his attention to Harry to prevent the prophecy from coming true. Given Voldemort’s nature, he would likely have sought to eliminate any remaining threat. Snape would've intervened (assuming he was aware), potentially resulting in a scenario similar to the one we know. This would mean Harry could still become the chosen one and “the Boy Who Lived,” despite the different circumstances. It’s an intriguing thought—how fate might realign even when the paths change.

This has probably been discussed before, but I just needed to yap a little. It’s been a while since I posted!

[hyperfocuscentre]

guys see the light!! morally grey james potter!! i need you to see the light and understand that he’s not a perfect angel, PLEASE.

[casurlaub]

Can we please agree that liking a character doesn't mean you have to explain away their every bad call? And that disliking a character doesn't mean you have to overlook their good qualities to have them fit your narrative? No one is just this or that. It's always a range.

The lack of nuance in parts of this fandom annoys me so much. And let's please drop the double standards - finding excuses for every 'bad' thing character A does while demonizing character B.

Dumbledore is no super villain. Yes, he put defeating Voldemort over Harry's (emotional) needs. He isn't some supportive father figure, but he's not responsible for the war nor everyone's decision to join in. 'He raised an army of children' - um no? Because if so, he, the greatest wizard of the age, did a shitty job. In both wizarding wars it was just one group of friends joining the Order, not a huge number of former students. So either super-smart Dumbledore seriously sucked at recruiting, or maybe he didn't try all that hard?

James wasn't some prime example of social justice warrior from the very beginning. Yes, he had - to some extent - a set moral code, he hated the Dark Arts, and he certainly never used dark curses on others. But he found it entertaining to hex students at random. He was a classic bully; he did it because he could and because he found it funny. He enjoyed it. But that doesn't mean he had no good traits - he cared for his friends, befriended Remus (practically an outcast), and later he changed. I can't get over the people who find excuses for Snape's bullying of his students, of literal children when he's an adult, but seem to think James was the worst person to ever exist.

Sirius has a ton of good qualities; I could write an essay about it. But guess what, that doesn't make the prank thing okay (no matter if Remus cared about it). The same goes for the Snape bullying and his condescending (cruel) behavior towards Peter. And his treatment of Kreacher, who was oppressed, not the oppressor. And why do we applaud him for 'forgiving' Remus in PoA for not trying to get him out of Azkaban? What's there to applaud? He was in Azkaban because he thought Remus was the spy, did we forget that? How do we expect Remus to suss out that Sirius thought himself clever enough to outsmart not only Voldemort but also Dumbledore? Sirius isn't on some moral high ground here. He wasn't in Azkaban because of Remus but because of his own arrogance and lapse of judgement.

Remus isn't some impersonated moral code. He isn't 'the sensible one' by default. He makes a ton of shitty, truly awful decisions (roaming Hogsmeade while a werewolf, not telling Dumbledore about the secret passages or Sirius's animagus form in PoA even after Sirius, the alleged mass murderer with an agenda of killing Harry, broke into Harry's dorm, abandoning Tonks...). But he isn't some master manipulator with a hidden agenda either. He was driven by his self-loathing first and foremost. And when did it become worse to be a bystander than to participate in the actual bullying? (I'm not saying it's okay, but how can we find excuses for James and Sirius, but Remus is super evil for doing... nothing? When it's stated that Snape was following him and trying to uncover his secret to get him expelled? Shocking he didn't feel all that sympathetic.) Of course he is passive-aggressive, of course he was selfish/cowardish, I don't know, but he isn't evil? He's usually kind (ffs, he even felt pity for Greyback), and his issues are in the end all rooted in his endless self-loathing. That doesn't excuse it. It doesn't. But it doesn't mean he's acting like he does because he's an inherently bad person. This idea of inherently 'bad' or 'good' people is naive and harmful anyhow. Besides - I feel some standards imposed on him are impossible to meet, when the same people are quick to explain away James's/Sirius's/Snape's flaws. Remus is suffering from massive childhood trauma that he's forced to relive every month, he's stigmatized for it by society his whole life, but he himself is supposed to just 'let it go'? Without therapy or anything? Right...

And even Lily isn't a saint. She's fighting back a smile when James is bullying her (supposedly) best friend?

Snape is no tragic hero whose every wrong is justified because he turned around and sacrificed himself. Of course, he was brave. Of course, he had a shitty childhood. That doesn't give him a free pass. He was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts when he arrived at Hogwarts already, he invented curses like Sectumsempra while at Hogwarts, he sold the 'love of his life' to Voldemort. And even after he 'changed' and overcame his fascist views, he bullied children he was supposed to take care of - as a grown man. Not only Harry, but also Neville, Hermione, Ron, who knows how many others. So, yeah, cool, he protected their lives 'when it counted' - 'when it counted'??? You don't belittle your students, you don't insult them, you don't threaten to poison their pets no matter what happened to you when you were a kid. You're an adult, take responsibility. Easy as that. What happened to you may be an explanation, but not an excuse. And do we really think he didn't strike back at James and Sirius? That it was just James and Sirius and him taking it lying down without doing anything himself? I don't.

It's entirely natural to relate more to one character than another and to feel more sympathetic towards them. But let's move away from this 'all or nothing' way of thinking.

To me, they're all beautiful because they're flawed. It makes them real. I don't want them to be stripped of their flaws, not even my favorite characters.

Don't take Sirius's darkness away, don't turn Remus into the ever gentle voice of reason or the super selfish master manipulator (same goes for Dumbledore) and ffs don't excuse Snape's fascist views and bullying of children.

[theblackstar04]

i like to imagine that lily tried to get severus out of his abusive household or at the very least keep him away from it to the most of her abilities as a child. she might not has succeeded, but she tried the best she could.

she met this boy who is being abused at home, you can't tell me she never invited him around, tried to keep him out of his house as much as possible. i know she wanted to get him out of that house but couldn't, not at that age atleast.

not to mention lily getting to meet another wizard and no longer feeling different to everyone around her, and severus getting to see and experience what a (relatively) healthy and safe family environment is like.

its really fun to play around with what severus could have been like if he wasn't sorted into slytherin, or if he never got indoctrinated to the death eaters.

[crimsonender]

Comparisons between Kingdom Hearts and classcical anime aren't unfounded, it's true. Moreover, it's not just "mere coincidence" either.

Kingdom Hearts has very openly been a love letter to animation, both Western and Japanese. How anyone could miss that considering that it's the entire focus of the series, with classic Disney characters in its staring role, is beyond me.

The characters original to Kingdom Hearts are inspired by Anime! You're going to see parallels of classic anime characters, plots, visuals, and also subversions of them all over the place! Kingdom Hearts is doing it on purpose!

[igibbydotcom]

hear me out: severus snape never actually had a redemption arc.

so something i deeply admire about severus snape’s character is how complex he is and how morally grey he is. like I think the only other character who displays grey morality better than snape is dumbledore (much to rowlings despair). this will be important in a second.

i dont believe snape even had a redemption arc because he never redeemed himself for the awful things he did that made him so disliked. Yes we find out his motives, that hes a double agent and is one of the most brilliant characters in the series for fooling voldemort. I applaud his intellect and complexity. But thats not redemption.

Severus Snape never changes as a person or a character. Because you know what he never does? Apologize. Take accountability. He just.. dies.

When Rowling introduced Severus’s character, he was already a double agent. When we find this out, it was a huuuge plot twist. “Aaa it explains so much , he’s in love with Lily he did it for Lily, hes such a hero !!” That’s all she wants you to think . Because if Severus’s character was always good, if he was always as well-meaning as was possible for his character.. then he never changed, and he never had a moment in the books where he self-reflected and grew as a character. Rowling tricked her audience into thinking this big reveal was his redemption but he does not go through an actual redemption arc He DIES with his apologies and laments on his tongue.

This is a man who verbally and emotionally abused children for years, for which there is NEVER justification. He is emotionally immature for a majority of the books, going so far as putting Remus’s life in danger by telling the student body of his condition (that is actively discriminated against). Severus’s meanness and pettiness are arguably his most defining traits and nothing about his “double agent that’s doing this for Lily’s son” justifies those behaviors.

All this to say I think Severus Snape is such a great character. He was just another pawn that Dumbledore used for personal gains. But Severus still did some fucked up shit out of his own free will and never really held himself accountable for those things, nor does he owe anyone that. Do i think he deserved a solid redemption arc? Absolutely. Partly what makes his death so tragic is that he didnt get one. And i think rowling promoting his redemption arc does him a great disservice.

EDIT: had post-post clarity and found the words i was looking for. Severus’s grey morality is an integral part of his unique character, and having a “redemption arc” risks narrowly defining him as “only bad before” or “only good after”. And i just think that goes against his character. Especially since he was doing bad and good things the entire time and, again, never actually changed as a character (in the series) cuz that wasn’t the goal of his character.

[debblefromdeltarun]

“you better not be morally grey loss when i get there”

my crazy ass:

[cartooname]

I had to do it

If it can hold 4 characters, it could hold the morally grey 4.

[marylily-my-beloved]

you know if we hated like the people who are like anti-whatever in the marauders fandom it would be sooo funnnyyy because all they have is stupid rants about why they hate things for literally no reason

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

favourite twdg villain?

I'm a fond enjoyer of the St. John's as villains. I don't know if they're my favorite just because they're only in one episode, but I love the concept of this family almost immediately jumping into cannibalism toward the start of the outbreak, dealing in human flesh to bandits, and casually feeding this group their friend's legs.

Like... what the hell was this family like before the outbreak that all three of them were like, "Hey now listen... nothing should go to waste, the dead are eating people so why shouldn't we? We gotta survive and in our defense, we only target those who were gonna die anyway... like y'all."

Dude, Mark was shot in this shoulder with an arrow. He wasn't going to die from that injury. It's so fucked that these seemingly friendly people took the group into their home and then fed them Mark's legs.

If we take the idea that everyone is infected and have the capacity within themselves to become walkers, to become monsters, then the St. John's were infected long before the outbreak, y'know? Not literally, but something was wrong with them and the outbreak just further spread that infection and changed them.

But again, are they my favorite? I dunno if I can say that since I have a lot more appreciation for Lily now. Yeah, some of her writing gets a little wonky in ep3 of TFS when she goes on her monologues and shit, but y'know what? I'm into it.

You have to remember who we're talking about and the fact that she's the antagonist; Lily isn't some anti-hero in TFS who secretly has a heart of gold that's brought to light because she reunited with Clementine... she's a fucked up woman who did fucked up things in the name of survival. She's full of rot now. She sees kidnapping children and turning them into soldiers to protect her home as a means to an end, but she doesn't actually give a shit about the people she's taking. They aren't people to her, they're as the episode title suggests, toys in her game. The only one she sees as a person is Clementine, and while that makes her hesitate at first, she sees Clementine's a prize to bring back.

She remembers what happened in S1; her father had a heart attack and as she tried to save him, Kenny smashed his face in with a saltlick and then expected Lily to just stand up and help him get back to his family because "he did what he had to, he made the hard choice." Yes, Larry was a piece of shit. No one liked him, and you can even question Lily on him and she'll tell you that he has a lot of pain. Yes, it makes him an asshole, but he's still her dad and he's all she has. I mean... the simplification is daddy issues, but in all seriousness, I don't doubt for a second that many of Lily's issues stem from Larry being a shitty father to her.

Then everyone thought she was losing it when she insisted there was a traitor in the group, which she was right about, but she was unstable. She was unwell, but how do you help someone like that when you don't have training to go about it? Then Lily ends up killing either Carley or Doug and the group turns on her, and either she's left behind or she steals the van and runs away.

Then we don't know what the hell happened to her until we see her again in TFS, but like... a lone woman with decay festering inside of her joining the delta? Exposing her to their methods? I mean, what else did she have to lose? She had nothing, she lost everything, and she has a lot of issues. Survival is easy when you're numb, when you don't care about the individual; they're all just cogs churning to make the system run, and if a piece doesn't cooperate, you get rid of it and find a new one.

Plus I think there's something to say about Lily not wanting to be perceived as weak again. That whole display she put on in the cells? Telling the story of what happened to Minerva and Sophie? I get the criticism that it feels like Lily did a 180 between episodes but like... yeah dude, because it's a performance. It's not just her and Clementine anymore. It's a display of power and authority. She's playing the part and thriving in it as she ensures everyone else is terrified of her.

But then when Clementine and AJ get the upper hand? Again, she's not afraid to play up the pleading to earn enough sympathy to spare her- hell, just to let their guard down enough to strike and get the upper hand again. I mean, she's got nothing else to lose, right? If she doesn't go for it, she'll be killed and sure, you can kill her anyway but at least she tried.

Honestly, I look at Lily in TFS and still see that scared little girl playing the tough bitch, just like Carley said in S1. It's just now escalated from "tough bitch" to a downright vile person. She's so... lost? I suppose? Lost within herself and the monstrous means she's taken to survive.

I get the criticisms of how she was used in TFS, but for me, it's like when people complain about Minerva not getting the redemption arc she supposedly should've gotten, y'know? There's no saving her. Lily was never on our side, and there was no getting her on our side. She wasn't ever going to redeem herself. Even if you spare her and she drifts away on her raft, can someone like her actually find redemption? Or will she just find another group that'll feed into her rot?

Truly, I say let her be horrid. Let her be the piece of shit villain with a few fleeting moments of humanity. Let her drown in the blood she's spilled.

[bigfatnerdd]

hear me out cake but I might have a type

[bookwormangie]

Understanding Snape and his character

I've been knee-deep in the Snape debate lately, and I’ve got some thoughts I need to lay out. Snape undeniably did some awful things as an adult, and he’s aware of that—he holds himself accountable and we should too. But his story isn’t just a straightforward tale of good versus evil.

Thinking about Snape, especially after diving into his memories in Deathly Hallows, it’s evident he was trying to make up for his past. When Snape begged Dumbledore to protect Lily and the Potters, it wasn't just a plea for safety—it was a glimpse into his desire for redemption and his need to atone because he knew he fucked up by relaying the prophecy. Dumbledore saw potential in him, not just as a spy, but as someone capable of change and redemption. Lily, the person he loves, being in danger and later dying, saved Snape and forced him to change. She was the catalyst for Snape's redemption arc and that's literally the whole point.

Then there’s Snape’s upbringing—a life marred by abuse at home and relentless bullying at school. That kind of trauma leaves deep scars; it molded Snape into a bitter and vindictive person. I can’t help but sympathize with him. He wasn’t born an asshole; circumstances shaped him that way. His journey from an abused home life to a bullied youth, to a Death Eater, and eventually to an antihero is a stark reminder of the complexities of human nature. It frustrates me to no end that people shower sympathy on abused characters like Harry, who turned out kind, yet refuse to extend the same empathy to Snape, who emerged bitter and vindictive—something so painfully realistic. Their situations were fundamentally different; Harry had a whole support system and was rich as fuck, but Snape had none and was living in poverty. Comparing them is unfair and misses the point entirely.

So when I see debates reducing Snape to a mere villain or hero, good or evil, I can’t help but feel we’re oversimplifying a deeply layered character. You can dislike Snape all you want, but painting him out to be something he's not, simplifying his character, and completely shitting on him is such an insult and a wrong interpretation of who he truly is. Snape’s morally grey journey through darkness and redemption is a testament to human struggle and growth. To truly understand Snape is to grasp his tumultuous path and his relentless quest to reconcile his actions with his conscience—a journey that resonates with the complexities of real life.

[wafflinglumos]

A deep dive into Severus Snape.

CW: child abuse and neglect, death eater activities, things of the like, vague mention of adults being creepy to minors

(This will follow the books and maybe some parts of the movies, I’m going to put away my own personal biases for this one lol. This isn’t Snape slander or me being pro Snape, rather a deep dive into his character and whether or not I think he can be “redeemed”. This took a long time to write and i tried to be as unbiased as possible so, hopefully this is good, though some of this might read as slander, it’s not my intention)

Morally grey characters are loved throughout all types of fandom and media, which makes sense, they’re interesting, fun to look into, sometimes they’re even better than the main character, however with Harry Potter and the Marauders fandom specifically, these morally grey characters have been changed into “good” characters, so I’ll be looking into whether these characters can be called “good” or “morally grey”, or if they’re just irredeemable.

Severus Snape is probably one of the most controversial characters in both Harry Potter and Marauders fandom, Snape has been called everything under the sun, evil, a hero, a creep, for some reason some people think that if Harry would’ve looked like Lily and been a girl that he would’ve been a creep, however, was he any of these?

Severus Snape’s childhood; Severus was an only child to pureblood Eileen Snape(née Prince) and muggle Tobias Snape, he lived near the Evans’ but in a poorer area, his appearance was scruffy and his clothes were hand me downs, in the books it’s mentioned that he wore long sleeves, heavy clothing even in hot weather which could elude to him trying to cover up bruising, in Pottermore it is mentioned that he had a “desperately lonely and unhappy childhood, with a harsh father who didn’t hold back when it came to the whip”, so if you consider Pottermore canon, then this would further push the physical abuse theory, however even without that, we know that Snape was neglected.

He met Lily Evans at nine, the two became bestfriends after that, while Petunia did not like Severus, Lily did. Their friendship continued into Hogwarts where Severus was sorted into Slytherin and Lily was sorted into Gryffindor, their friendship however grew strained due to Snape’s association to dark magic and Death Eaters/blood supremacists, during this time, a rivalry was formed with James Potter, some argue it was bullying, which it was, however, in my personal opinion it was a rivalry with JAMES, but became bullying when the Marauders got involved, to be clear it was bullying, there is simply not an argument to say it wasn’t, it was 4 vs 1, which is simply bullying. Snape and Lily’s friendship fin fifth year was already rocky due to Snape’s association with aspiring Death Eaters Mulciber and Avery, the former of which had tried to use dark magic on Mary MacDoanld in either their fifth or sixth year, but the ending of their friendship was in fifth year, where Lily had tried to defend him from James after a rather nasty “prank”, where in Severus’ humiliation he lashed out and called her “filthy Mudblood”. He later begged for Lily’s forgiveness, where Lily asked him if he was still planning on joining the Death Eaters, he did not deny this, which marked the ending of their friendship.

Snape during Hogwarts was still redeemable, however, when it gets to adulthood, he’s harder to defend. Severus treated Harry like shit, you can argue that Harry was the byproduct of everything that Snape couldn’t stand, James Potter and Lily’s lack of romantic interest in him, however, people have argued over Snape’s treatment of Harry and there are much more articulate arguments for and against his action when it came to Harry, so I’m going to look into Severus’ other actions.

Snape and Neville; Snape’s treatment of Neville was abhorrent in all sense of the word, he treated him so terribly that he was Neville’s boggart, not Bellatrix who was directly responsible for taking his parents away, but his potions professor. Furthermore, Snape’s lack of care for Trevor was a shit thing for him to do, even more so when he got upset at Hermione for trying to make sure Neville didn’t POISON his pet.

Snape and Hermione; Snape was incredibly cruel to Hermione, we see this when he calls her an “insufferable know-it-all with a really bad set of teeth”, he also called her an “insufferable know-it-all’ again after she answered a question that HE asked, we also see this when Draco accidentally hexes Hermione instead of Harry which made her teeth grow over a foot long, when asking Snape for help, Snape remarked that he “saw no difference”.

Along with his favoritism for Slytherin, Severus was simply a bully. However, he did various acts of good, he saved Harry during quidditch, he saved the trio from Death Eater, he, though begrudgingly helped Harry try to block Voldemort from his mind, he saved Draco from bleeding out, and in his final moments he told Harry all the truths that Dumbledore kept from him.

So, is Snape a hero, is he a villain, is he somewhere in between, is he even redeemable? Well, no and yes. Severus Snape is textbook definition of morally grey character, with a whole list of flaws, and a whole lists of positives, Severus Snape was not a good person, but he was not not a good person either.

Severus Snape is a morally grey character, and is he of the more fascinating characters of the series, I’d say this, in my personal opinion is what makes him irredeemable AND redeemable. Snape could’ve been redeemed, the issue is his “redemption arc” was not a redemption arc, controversial take, sure, but there was not enough time for him to have a FULL redemption arc, if you wanna argue that he had a redemption arc when it came to him being a spy for Dumbledore and technically saving Harry, I’d have to agree and disagree, Snape at most had a “semi redemption arc’’, his actions and shit behavior towards Neville, Harry, Hermione etc etc, was not redeemed, not only because it could not be redeemed, but also because he did not have enough TIME to redeem it. If Snape would’ve lived longer, I think an attempt at a better redemption could have been made, but he did not.

That’s just my view of his character however, whether you love him or hate him, both are understandable. My conclusion however is he wasn’t good or bad. Hopefully it was unbiased, as I tried to make it as such.

[swag696942069]

I don't know who needs to hear this, but that man is not "morally grey" hes a fùcking murderer!