#i understand why some people don't like him or disagree with his morals; i really do. i do sometimes think there's no hope and that the -

[peachesnpears95]

NAH, THE FANDOM NEEDS TO DO BETTER - IN ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING ON SCREEN! INSTEAD OF BLINDLY THROWING OUT BLAME BETWEEN WUKONG AND MACAQUE!

I am just done with this; I try to be as chill and as agreeable with people as possible and try to see other people's viewpoints, and try to get behind their thoughts and opinions as best I can- but no more. I'm sick of this Macaque slander and defamation.

THIS ENDS NOW.

Alright so, that's it! Dishonor! Dishonor on the whole fandom! I'm taking Wukong AND Macaque away from y'all until you can play nice and stop bashing on both of them and misunderstanding their characters and saying foul things that are untrue and is utter character- assassination.

Neither of them deserves it!

But right now, we're talking about Macaque, I'll probably talk about Wukong at a later date- but for now we focus on Macaque.

So, let's get into it.

I have to disagree with this person for several reasons.

Forgive me if this seems hostile, I am just very passionate and I am in no way trying to start a fandom war. I just can't sit back and watch Macaque get slandered, misunderstood and treated like he's the worse of the worst by the fandom anymore.

I'm sorry but I have to step in and say something, because I would be remise if I didn't and I can't STAND to see something like this floating around, perpetuating that Macaque is some type of fucking abusive, vindictive, and evil character that hasn't tried to be better or make amends in any way shape or form- because it's not true at all.

"Macaque, who has put in ZERO on-screen effort to become a better person or make amends to his victims"

^^^

my fucking whole ass, no.

I am sorry op but this is a fucking shit take and completely and utterly false and wrong.

All Macaque has done SINCE being freed from the LBD's control is work to be BETTER and make amends through his actions- and y'all and many other ppl of the fandom are really gonna go and ignore all of it?

SERIOUSLY?!?!

NAHHHH! NAHHHHH NAHHHHHHH! Macaque has risked his life for the others multiple times, and put himself in danger over and over again for not only MK, and Wukong but also for the others too. Just because we don't see him VERBALLY apologize on screen, doesn't mean his actions don't speak. There are so many instances where Macaque's actions speak LOUDER than words ever could or will. You can SAY things, but unless you actually DO something to back those words up- they will mean nothing.

If Macaque hadn't finally broken free from the LBD and went up against Wukong and put his life on the line to keep him distracted, then MK and the others would have been fucked.

Also, you all realize that Macaque's HEART was never in playing the big bad villain, even MK said as much. Macaque only did those things to survive. The LBD held his life over his head and told him to fucking DANCE with death. Macaque was backed into a corner, with nowhere to go, and no allies on his side to help him.

He was literally all alone, trying to keep himself alive. Macaque bringing the mayor to the LMK gang should speak volumes on Macaque's TRUE character. Macaque is a complex, morally gray character, and it sucks to see posts like this paining him in such a black/white way.

Macaque was an unwilling shadow puppet for the LBD, and he only did what he thought he had to, in order to survive. Because who was he going to turn to for help? It's like when you back a caged animal into a corner, they're going to bite. Don't you lie to me and say you wouldn't do about anything to survive, even if it meant having to do things that weren't 100% morally correct. Like if you were pushed far enough, if your life was on the razor's edge, wouldn't you fight for it?

Like yes he hurt people, yes he threatened Mei, yes he did a lot of fucked up things- were they right? NO. But it's understandable why he did what he did, he WANTED to live.

Like should he have just given the fuck up and died, again? Is that what you wanted from him? Cause that's fucked up. He's literally a victim (just like everyone else) and was being used and abused by the Lady Bone Demon. He had his freedom and agency taken away from him unwillingly and forced to fight to survive.

But the SECOND he gets free from the LBD's grasp. What does he do? He HELPS MK and the others. He chooses to stay and fight with them. Chooses to BE BETTER and help RIGHT the wrongs he (unwillingly) played a part in. And he does this knowing Wukong is waiting for him. The very person who killed him. He fights Wukong even though he's terrified, and this time he's willing to risk his life, because he actually CARES about Wukong and MK both. They're probably the two people he cares for the most at this point and he's willing to die freely just to save them.

He doesn't really have much of a relationship with the others at the time, but he knows they're important to Wukong and MK, so he also risks everything to help them too.

-

-

-

-

Then he helped MK go into the scroll -reliving memories that were probably as painful for him to relive (as they were for Wukong) but he did it anyways, to help find Wukong and bring him back. Which I might add was the final push Wukong NEEDED to get out of the scroll.

And then he helped Mei fight Peng to give everyone else a chance to do what THEY needed to do in the plan, so Wukong and MK could get to Azure.

Making sure it went off without a hitch, risking HIMSELF like how everyone else was risking themselves.

Peng wasn't fucking playing, that bird was aiming to kill with those strikes. Peng even called Macaque out.

Asking him if there was nothing Wukong could do that could break his hold over him. And the answer is NO. Not even DEATH broke that hold.

Macaque is ride or die for Wukong still, and would risk his life for Wukong's sake -even though Wukong is an immortal being who can't die- I'll BET MY GRAVE AND ANYTHING ELSE, THIS! Macaque would throw himself in front of Wukong to shield him just because he cares so much about him. He would also probably do it for MK too, in fact he DOES put himself at risk for MK later on to try and save him from himself, and we will get into that soon!

_ _ _ _ _

And then later down the line he let the others escape Ling Ji's prison by literally putting himself in the line of fire and letting himself get captured instead! He SHADOW TELEPORTS THEM OUT BECAUSE HE KNOWS THEY WON'T GO IF HE DIDN'T.

THEN HE DOESN'T RUN OFF, HE STAYS THERE TO BUY THEM TIME. MACAQUE STAYS TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF PUTTING HIMSELF ON ThE LINE. HE CHARGES STRIGHT FORWARD LIKE A WARRIOR WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT IS WAITING FOR HIM!

HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT IS COMING! ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN TO HIM/ANYTHING COULD BE WAITING FOR HIM IN THERE. BUT HE STANDS HIS GROUND.

And then when Wukong is being tormented by the 100 eyed demon? Macaque doesn't even HESITATE to help him from the 100 eyed demon's control. HE IMMEDIATELY comes to Wukong's side to free him so they can go find MK.

He was also the one to strike out at the 100 eyed demon when they DID find MK. Mei might have threatened the demon first, but Macaque was the one that just went STRAIGHT to strikes.

-

-

AND THEN- Tell me who is it that uses his shadow powers over and over against the 9 Headed Demon, trying to protect MK the only way he can while he's literally tied up and was the ONLY one who could ACTUALLY do anything about it?

And who was the one that BROKE out of the chaos powers to KEEP MK from throwing himself into the pillar initially- oh that's right, Macaque!

Look at him, Macaque is GENUINELY fucking terrified.

Because he's seen this happen before, with himself. Macaque has been in MK's position before. An emotional spiral of self-destruction that ended up with him dead.

Macaque KNOWS from experience because HE LITERALLY went through the same thing before. And didn't have anyone to let him know that not EVERYTHING was on him. That he didn't have to be alone and do things by himself. That he could have found a better way, a different way. A path that wouldn't have led him attacking the Pilgrims and Wukong- and then right into the grave.

Macaque knows what's happening, he has since the start of S5.

Macaque let himself spiral in the past due to feeling neglected emotionally, and he went down a path of self-destruction that ended up with him dead (he even says as such in the show during s4) when he was talking about Wukong meeting Tang Sanzang.

Macaque has had to WATCH MK go through the same fucking thing here as he did.

He KNEW at the start nothing good would come of MK's spiral.

That's WHY he told Wukong to be better, because he was speaking from past experience. (Not to be spiteful or vindictive or whatever.)

Macque was truly concerned for MK and he doesn't want what happened between him and Wukong to happen between MK and Wukong- because he cares about the Kid so much even if he doesn't say it.

Wukong has been shown time and time again he's not the best at reading people, and that sometimes he prefers to cheekily brush things off without really listening to anyone else, only getting tunnel-focused on the task and hand.

And forgetting to really listen to the concerns of his friends/family, because he is just focusing on protecting them instead of actually taking their thoughts/feelings/emotions into consideration. ((We can also see this during the Samadhi fire arc, where he keeps the fourth ring a secret- MEI EVEN CALLS HIM OUT FOR IT))

I am not saying that Wukong doesn't care, he in fact cares a lot, but he just forgets to actually let the people he cares for ACTUALLY know.

This is what happened to Macaque.

Wukong brushed off his feelings every time he tried to voice his concerns, or ignored him, instead of actually listening to him. He unintentionally neglected Macaque's feelings as he sought out immortality and to take down the Jade Emperor.

Macaque isn't just pulling this from nowhere. This is a fucking pattern form Wukong, we see it on screen, we see him do this. Unintentional or not, Wukong neglected Macaque's emotions and made him feel like he meant NOTHING to Wukong. This is what Macaque has been afraid of since getting to know MK, that MK would end up being neglected just like him. Remember his shadow play? "The Hero and the Warrior were like the Sun and the Moon. Their light, a protective glow, shining upon the world. Together, there was nothing that could stop the two of them. Either in the Celestial Realms or on Earth. As time went on, the Hero attained power beyond comprehension. As the Hero's light grew, so too did his shadow. And soon, the Warrior was cast in that shadow. In the darkness, the Warrior was forgotten by the Hero." "Well, with ol' Monkey King not around, I thought someone should teach you a lesson. Ah, MK, you really are dense, aren't you? You saw a story about a hero who got handed everything, who didn't have to work for anything, and you thought you were the other guy? The second the Hero got real power; he couldn't care less about his friends. That's you, bud."

"Oh, did you just realize they were missing? Classic hero maneuver. Maybe it's just me but these guys don't look too happy about being left in the shadow of the great Monkie Kid."

Everyone thinks Macaque is lying or embellishing, but he's not.

Not really, he's just showing it from his perspective, which is the only one he's got- speaking from his past experiences about how he was unintentionally left feeling neglected.

Macaque was quite literally projecting his own emotional neglect onto MK. To Macaque, Wukong forgot who/why he was doing all of that for. He felt abandoned and cast aside by Wukong. Because Wukong never listened, he brushed off his feelings, and it obviously left Macaque with emotional scars, due to his best friend's neglect.

Wukong did WRONG by Macaque, by accidentally neglecting him.

This is what Macaque has started fearing for MK, why he's so tough on Wukong to be better, because he can SEE it. He can see what happened to himself, happening to MK. The Kid is on a path of self-destruction, and if he doesn't say or do anything, then the past will happen ALL OVER again. This is why Macaque was rightfully fucking angry and pissed off when he asked Wukong if he ever once questioned why MK had all his powers and could lift his staff, and where he even came from. All because Macaque doesn't want a repeat of the past. He doesn't want MK's emotions to spiral out of control and lead him down a dark path that might end up in his death.

Macaque has come to genuinely love and care for MK and doesn't want him to THROW his life away. HE EVEN BEGS - and LOOKS and SOUNDS like he's going to CRY when he's trying to stop MK. He's so desperate to save MK from himself, because no one TRIED saving him- no one CARED enough to. But MK has so many people who care, and he needs to know that! MK NEEDS TO KNOW IT'S NOT ALL ON HIM!

Macaque has BEEN HERE before. He has LIVED this. He KNOWS how it will END.

He's trying so hard because he cares about MK. and he knows Wukong does too, and the others. And he can't just like MK do this- Macaque CAN'T let MK do what he did and destroy himself.

Then who is it that uses his shadow powers AGAIN to free EVERYONE! So Wukong can go after MK- AH RIGHT MACAQUE! Macaque isn't even concerned about himself in the moment, he doesn't care how he's feeling, doesn't give himself a second thought. All he needs is for someone to go after MK - because he can't fucking do it in his current condition.

Selflessly, Macaque rejects Wukong's concern (what he's wanted for centuries, the thing he's truly wanted most- for Wukong to actually show genuine concern over his wellbeing, without trying to play it off and be cheeky/brush it off- to actually be serious) all in favor of telling Wukong to LEAVE and stop MK.

Macaque WAS right all along what would happen if things continued like they were.

He truly saw the real and deep extent of MK's self-destruction before ANYONE else- before Wukong, or his other family/friends. The others were concerned, sure, but they didn't understand the true severity of it, not until MK is about to sacrifice himself.

But Macaque, deep down, understood where this might lead MK. That MK might fall from the edge, with no one to catch him. Which is why he was so desperate to catch MK as he fell, because no one caught him when he did!

Macaque's spiral destroyed him, he knows what it's like. He lived through what MK did. He lived the path of self-destruction centuries ago. Macaque saw himself in MK, and feared where it would lead MK. Feared he would do something that got himself killed.

AND IT DID!

MK DID jump into the pillar, because he still believed he had to do it alone, that it was all on him. MK went down the path that Macaque did, and he almost DIED for it. (in fact, technically he WAS dead, if you think about it)

Macaque never wanted this for MK, because he knows what it's like to die, then come back to life. The physical wounds might have healed, but mentally and emotionally?

MK might have come back physically fine, but his mental and emotional state will NEVER be the same again. He and Macaque have both DIED and come back to life- changed forever. Physically they are fine, but mentally and emotionally?

They will BOTH be scarred with that for the rest of their lives.

-

-

-

-

Macaque HAS changed and HAS become a better person- and it sucks that his efforts have been downplayed by the fandom, all because he doesn't just say a stupid fucking word?

"sorry?"

HEAVENS HELP ME!

Macaque has done nothing but selflessly risk himself, time and time again, since he worked for the LBD. He has worked to make amends through his actions.

He's made it CLEAR that he cares about Wukong, MK and the others, and he will fight alongside them, and hell if he has to- he would DIE alongside them. He hasn't run from a fight once since he's started fighting alongside them. He's THERE, through thick and thin, and he would push himself beyond the breaking point to protect them.

What better way is there for him to make amends/show his remorse than show he's willing to do whatever it takes to protect the LMK gang?

To Macaque, words are NOT enough. There's nothing he can say that would make things better. So, like a warrior, he takes action instead and shows -instead of tells- the others that he's sorry, and he is willing to stand by them and fight.

It wouldn't hurt for him to say sorry verbally, no.

But what the fuck is he even supposed to say: Hey, sorry for almost fucking killing all of you back then?

It would be so awkward of him to say, and it probably wouldn't even SOUND sincere, even if it actually was. I understand people wanting a verbal apology, but being SORRY doesn't always mean JUST saying sorry.

You can BE and SAY sorry all you damn well want to, but it means FUCK all if you don't show you are with actions and with change, and Macaque has done BOTH in leaps and bounds.

Being sorry means you back it up with actions, and with change.

You do better.

And Macaque HAS been!

Macaque understands full well he fucked up, he's not stupid, and he faces the consequences of that by having to work every day to show the others he's changed.

Macaque will ALWAYS have to live with the guilt of what he's done in the past. Is that not fucking punishment enough? Do some of y'all in the fandom have to fucking bash him at every fucking turn possible? Frankly, I'm done sitting by and watching Macaque be misunderstood, misjudged and hated on, because some of you people are as blind as the fucking brotherhood when they wrongfully blamed Wukong for everything going wrong and not holding themselves accountable for their actions.

Macaque does in fact, hold himself accountable, by doing everything he possibly can to protect and fight alongside the LMK Gang. Macaque is trying, and his story isn't over yet.

The fandom is judging him unfairly (as they do with Wukong as well) and failing to consider the nuance, the subtext, and the complexity of Macaque and his character- and just painting him as this one dimensional, obsessive, abusive, and loathsome character.

MACAQUE'S STORY/CHARACTER ARC HASN'T EVEN CONCLUDED YET, AND YOU'RE ALL STILL SITTING HERE CURSING HIS NAME LIKE HE'S A SCOURGE!

WHAT THE FUCK YOU GUYS?! Also like, the characters in the show seem to have already forgiven Macaque (or ARE on the verge of)- so like, why can't we all fucking do the same?!

Has Macaque not suffered enough from dying, being revived, used and abused, and then risking himself and his life over and over for the LMK Gang (Showing he's changed from selfishly seeking self-preservation.)

Seriously Macaque went from an I only want to survive mindset, to a mindset of- I will die for Wukong, MK and their family/friends if I must.

Macaque really sells himself short, saying he isn't a Hero. But is that not what heroes do? Do they not forgo themselves and the threat to their life- to save others. Which is what Macaque has been doing ever since the LBD Arc.

Just how many more times must Macaque risk his life to prove he's changed to the fandom? To prove he has regrets/remorse for what he's done? What does Macaque have to do for some of the fandom to stop treating him like the spawn of fucking evil? Does he have to DIE again for you lot to be satisfied?

I cannot take this Macaque slander and hatred anymore. I am sick to death of it. I'm usually not this fucking mad, but this post ENRAGED me.

Op I promise I do not hate you.

I just HATE what you wrote and put out there, because it's simply not at all true or correct, and Macaque already gets enough misplaced hatred.

(if you want to block me, I don't blame you. I just needed to get this off my chest and your post just made it all come to a head.)

I am not defending Macaque simply because I think he's hot/can do no wrong/is perfect uwu baby victim. No, I understand Macaque for his faults. I know he's done wrong, I know he's not a perfect victim.

But he's NOT who you're making him out to be either. He has changed, and has done better.

Can't we just PLEASE acknowledge this?!

Seriously, I'm at my limit, I cannot fucking take it anymore. GET ME THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!

If I pissed some of you people in the fandom off, then just fucking block me. I don't care. Just don't engage with me. I don't want to interact with people who can't even see that y'all are wrong about Macaque and he doesn't deserve half the fucking hatred he gets! Just because he isn't what you want him to be, or act how you want him to act, or say what you want him to say- doesn't make him a poorly written character. He's just flawed, messy, complex, and makes mistakes in LMK like everyone else, and I'm sick of people demonizing him.

I am revoking the fandom's right to play with Wukong and Macaque for the time being, until the fandom can learn some media fucking literacy, look beyond the surface level, and learn to be SHOWN THINGS AND PAY ATTENTION and not just be handheld and told things and to think for your god damn selves and actually use your noodles!

MOMOCHI KID OUT!

“You need to do better.”

(This gets vitriolic, and is a full-blown criticism of Macaque’s portrayal in Season Four and Five. If criticism of a character/franchise you like upsets you, I do not recommend reading.)

Wow. I had no faith in his character writing, and I’m STILL disappointed.

And it only took one episode! How impressive!

Macaque, who has put in ZERO on-screen effort to become a better person or make amends to his victims, is criticizing Wukong for being a bad mentor! And does Wukong criticize him back? NOPE!

After getting screamed at and berated, does Wukong defend himself? NOPE!

Ooh, but there was a second long reference in a dual yelling match that mentioned that Macaque was a genuinely bad person who took glee in hurting innocent people! Oh, fucking delightful! Ooh, Wukong even points out in one episode that Macaque goes without consequences!

Pointing out a flaw in your writing does not make it less of a flaw.

Macaque will always be allowed to do whatever he wants to anyone he wants- power theft, attempted murder, insults, deceit, assault-

And the narrative and characters will never hold him accountable or force Macaque to look inwards or become a better person.

Macaque will always fall upwards into redemption without any obstacles or pushback.

There will never be a struggle to goodness with a satisfying conclusion. There will never be a moment where falters in his newfound goodness and questions going back to his old ways. There will never be explicit remorse or regret. He will never have deep introspections on his crimes and atrocities that provide a reason for him to want to change.

The sum of his “arc” will always be “you were a good guy all along”, and that lack of depth is where it will stay.

RIP Seasons 1-3 Macaque. You were fun and interesting and cool and lovable.

But the man they replaced you with was destined to be a boring and brooding “anti-hero” who has no real connection to the actions you selfishly and violently performed with your own two hands-

And you will always be a less interesting character for it.

The execution of the actual arc boils down to a single heroic (but ultimately self-serving) moment and then Macaque is immediately forgiven for all the crimes he’s committed and is a magically better person without any effort and nothing he’s done is ever brought up again.

It severely weakens any character’s arc to cut them off from their past actions. If MK forgot his traumas every season instead of carrying them forward- we’d all agree that doing so was a case of poor writing.

It was the reason that people disliked Mei’s portrayal in Season Four- she immediately moved on from the Samadhi Fire arc and “no longer wielded it” after spending a whole season gathering and learning to use it.

Why can’t we agree that it’s bad for Macaque, too?

You can’t “develop” a character by dropping an entire plotline and writing it off with one line.

You can’t “redeem” a character by pretending that they were a good person right from the start.

Sorry, bud.

I really did like you. I just wish I could like your writing.

——————

And, what is more clear to me now than ever?

People only defended Macaque’s shitty writing because they think he’s hot.

I know this now, because I’ve seen white-hot Li Jing arc hatred from fervent Macaque arc defenders.

So we all agree that an “I didn’t really mean it!” isn’t an excuse to abuse the people around you? That you don’t get to mistreat innocent people just because you’re stressed and upset?

Hmmm.

Hmmmmmmm.

I wonder why people despise Jing for his dogshit “one nice thing redeems all your bad actions” arc but love Macaque for his??

(Because they think the monkey is hot.)

The funny thing, though?

Li Jing apologizes to at least one of the victims of his actions. He expresses regret and remorse.

Macaque doesn’t even have that.

——————

Anyways here’s a line that I hate because Macaque has in no way developed enough to have the right to deliver it-

AND NO, SUDDENLY HAVING AN AFFINITY FOR PERFORMING KIND OR SACRIFICIAL ACTS IS NOT GOOD CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

HIM MAGICALLY OFFSCREEN BECOMING A GOOD PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT INNOCENT LIFE IS NOT GOOD CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

IF ALL IT TAKES TO “BE BETTER” IS ACTING LIKE A HERO, WUKONG IS LITERALLY A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER OF A PERSON THAN HE IS

THIS LINE IS DOGSHIT

“You need to do better.”

Really, Macaque? Maybe you should take your own damn advice- try apologizing to one of the people you tried to hurt and tried to murder in cold blood!

Like when you trapped MK under his staff after stealing his powers and tried to murder him when he was helpless?

Or when you kidnapped MK’s friends and tortured the kid by forcing him to fight them?

Or you led a violent assault against a palace full of innocent people?

Or violently beat his dear friends until they were screaming in pain?

Or assaulted Tang, who posed no threat to you?

Or threatened to murder an innocent girl if you didn’t get your way, then ran away (and encouraged MK to abandon her) first thing when it put her into a life-threatening meltdown of raw power?

(Isn’t it cool how NONE of these people have interesting or varied reactions to him doing this and ALL immediately are cool with him like a gelatinous hivemind.)

(Oooh ONE mildly questioning line from Pigsy but no anger over his adoptive son nearly being killed multiple times over)

(Isn’t it cool that no one has complex or interesting thoughts on this.)

(Isn’t it cool that by robbing them of unique feelings on the matter they robbed Macaque and the Monkie Kids of compelling and interesting interactions that could’ve helped flesh out their personalities and strengthen their characterization.)

(Isn’t it cool that Macaque and the Monkie Kids are actively denied intriguing character dynamics so Macaque’s shitty “redemption arc” can happen faster.)

(Isn’t that cool.)

Why don’t YOU do better, Macaque?

(In a way that is more satisfying than “one kind-hearted speech from a kid that I tried to murder changed my mind and now I am a better person but all my character development happened offscreen and without personal introspection”, at least.)

Also what the fuck do you mean by “do better”?

Be heroic and put your life in danger? He already does that! He’s done it more than you have!

Just tell MK that he’s not alone? YOU COULD DO THAT YOURSELF, MACAQUE!

Help MK with his traumas and fears? MK doesn’t tell anyone about those! He keeps them bottled up, lock and key, and actively refuses attempts to help!

Wukong TRIED to reach out to him, and MK PUSHED HIM AWAY! Was he supposed to tie the fucking kid down and torture the information out of him?

He respected MK’s boundaries by not pushing any further and letting him leave!!

WHY IS THAT A BAD THING??

What the fuck, man

[rivereverie]

Astarion and learned cruelty (spoilers)

As always, this is all just my interpretation of the character. Feel free to disagree. 

I love the writing choice to make Astarion genuinely immoral at first. They could have easily pulled the overdone trope of "I only pretend to be evil because I'm traumatized. I'm really just a sad little guy who wouldn’t hurt anyone". Now I do believe his behavior is a direct result of his trauma, but I'll get to that in a minute. The point is that he does genuinely relish in violence, although his actions will be swayed by whichever moral direction the player decides to go. But he does enjoy combat, spilling blood, and even some more cruel and unusual things. However, what makes this so compelling and narratively rich is that this is a learned mindset.

I think that a lot of people don't acknowledge that going into act 1, Astarion has just come out of a situation where he was quite literally forced to participate in horrific crimes, with severe consequences if he refused. That absolutely does not excuse the fact that he's okay with if not outright enthusiastic about murder, but we do see that he was not always this way (e.g., he tried at least once to let a target go because he couldn't bring himself to take them to Cazador). I just think it's worth acknowledging that that mindset was the product of centuries of torment and active overt and covert conditioning. He became who Cazador wanted him to be; who he had to be in order to survive. Astarion and Karlach are two sides of a coin in this regard, in that they represent opposite responses to trauma and loss of autonomy. Karlach was forced into martial servitude, which in my opinion explains why she's still kind of bloodthirsty even though she's such a good and kind person bent on protecting others. She's shaped by the role she was forced into, and it's the same with Astarion. Again, not to say he isn't morally dubious, but there's a big difference between someone evil and someone who was never allowed to be "good" suddenly being thrust back into freedom and forced to figure things out.

To a degree, I do also think that his over-the-top declarations of his love for violence are another piece of his mask. Just like with his feigned hedonism and sexual forwardness, he's trying to hold power over people by controlling their perception of him (as well as his own self-perception). He's holding a big sign that says "I'm selfish and evil, and you shouldn't like me unless you are too", when really he's not anywhere near as selfish and evil as he pretends to be. He does this in part to keep people at arm's length, but also to convince himself; to craft his own reality wherein he is the person he needs to be to get through this situation. His worldview has been warped to see domination and control as synonymous with strength, and so he's being strong in the way he knows how. As the story progresses with a good player on his side, he's beginning to learn how to be something better. And that's why it takes time: because he's unlearning 200 years of conditioning and survival instincts.

It's worth talking about that it's not unheard of for abusers to force victims to participate in the abuse of others. I think that representing that experience in this game is important and valuable. We should all walk the line between holding these kinds of survivors accountable for what is appropriate, and to offer them oceans of understanding and empathy for them over what they were forced into. Even if Astarion weren't magically forced to do Cazador's bidding, I hope that we all could still understand the power that abusers hold over their victims, empathize with him, and see that those actions were an extension of Cazador, not himself.

Official D&D definitions of "evil" aside, I don't think he's ever truly evil unless he goes down the evil route with the player and/or ascends (Ascended Astarion is a whole other can of worms I’m not going to get into in this post). By the end of the spawn storyline, Astarion does have a lot more concern and care for others, and most importantly, he takes responsibility. To me, that shows profound strength and goodness. He's never a saint, but in my opinion he's never really evil, either. He's still learning how to live in a world where he doesn't need to be cruel in order to survive. 

Concerning the early access backstory about him being a "corrupt magistrate", it's up to the individual how to headcanon that information. Personally, I think he was probably a little self-interested, but not evil by any means. I think he was probably just a pretty normal person before Cazador, not predisposed to cruelty.

In summary, I think it’s important to talk about what makes people “bad”, especially in the context of the cycle of abuse and victimization. In Astarion’s case, much of his taste for cruelty came from implicit conditioning over his years of being forced to hurt others. There are a number of lines from him during the dungeon/crypt sequence where he keeps insisting, defensively and desperately, that he didn’t have a choice in bringing victims back to Cazador. That it was all on his orders and he couldn’t say no. This might come across to some as him trying to shirk blame, but the thing is… he’s right. He didn't have a choice, other than death, but I think Cazador would deny him even that. He wanted to make his spawn into obedient tools, but also to break them. To make them an extension of his own monstrous cruelty. But in the end, Astarion takes responsibility as best he can, and begins to forgive himself for being a part of Cazador’s evil. This is part of what makes the line “I am so much more than what you made me” so powerful.

[canonically47]

i cannot ever get over gi-hun actually. the fact that he chooses to believe in the good of humanity even after witnessing what he has, and that he joins the games AGAIN with (mathematically) even LESS chances of survival JUST because he wants to save people, people who DON'T CARE, people who are SELFISH and who continuously betray and hurt him just fucking KILLS ME. a very big critique from many people (and i've noticed, especially men) about the second season and gi-hun's character is that he is stupid. they find him to be stupid that he has this weak spot for an uncaring crowd, that he comes back to the games to save people who wouldn't think of him twice, instead of going to his daughter. they think that him caring and despising a system this deeply is a sign of weakness and stupidity.

but if anything, i find it admirable. maybe i can't bring myself to hate him because i think i'd do the same thing. i watch him on-screen and think, "yeah, i would do that too", every single mistake, every single thing, i get him. and he may look stupid to some but i think if anything, he's just too caught up in an ideal world in which people care, but i find it admirable that this is his personality even after witnessing the previous games. he still has hope, they haven't wiped it away from him. comparing him to in-ho is like night and day, because in-ho was broken by the games and came back to perpetuate that same hurtful system, while gi-hun was broken by the games and came back to break the people that created the system, and the system itself.

he speaks to me, as an individual who clings to hope until his very last breath, who can never seem to learn from his mistakes because he is so stubborn, he wants to prove that humanity could, and should, have hope and that it's worth to fight for it, not to just leave for a different continent and forget about it. that's what draws me to him, this endless fight in him, i can't find him stupid because he's so desperate to change things. and he never gives up even after his friends die before him.

idk i just am really unwell about gi-hun. i think people treat him too harshly. i'm unsure how well this is worded, but what i really want to say is that i don't think he should be perfect and immediately learn from every single mistake he has ever made. the fact that he is this broken given his past, even before the games he's set up as this really caring and traumatized individual, and that they double down on his same characteristics that make him so incredibly real... he's just really special to me. i really admire the way he is written and i think he's a really good representation of people who fight for a change even when it all seems lost. he's just that kind of guy that doesn't, couldn't, will never give up. and i really love that.

[ismaeldrawsthings]

I am the friend that's too woke bc my concept of gender dynamics and expressions make it difficult for me to understand What The Fuck are People On when they come to this god forsaken website and say "Madeline Miller imposed straight relationship dynamics onto Patrochilles' relationship" or "Madeline Miller made Patroclus feminine".

Is healing an inherently feminine trait for you? Is him not being fond of violence in the book inherently feminine to you? I don't understand.

It may not go with the context of The Iliad, but it goes perfectly with the context of TSOA. Of course Patroclus, the boy who accidentally took a life when he was still a child, wouldn't like violence. It goes hand in hand within the context of the novel. As well as him being a healer, having learned with Chiron. All of this make sense in the context of TSOA.

Now... And hear me out on this, you're allowed to disagree: I don't believe this is really mischaracterization.

I personally don't believe such thing as "mischaracterizing" a mythological character exist. Since mythological characters are moldable depending on: The culture in which they are written, who wrote them, the historical context, among others. They are multifacetic and their characterizations depend on the aforementioned factors. For example, in The Iliad, Helen fucking hated Paris and wanted to go back to Sparta with her husband. Meanwhile, in The Odyssey, Helen immitates the voice of the wives of the men inside the wooden horse in order to torture them, wanting to sabotage their victory in order to stay in Troy. These are two completely different and opposite characterizations of her character. Helen is one of the biggest examples of how characterization works in mythology. Some people believe she loved Paris and went to Troy willingly with him, others believe she hated him and he took her forcefully and raped her. All of these interpretations are true bc myths are ambiguous and adapt to the people's beliefs and practices.

And they adapt to their time, for which I say that Patroclus' character in TSOA was not a mischaracterization of him as a whole. Patroclus represents kindness, and the traits of a kind man were different in ancient Greece than they are today. It doesn't matter. What matter is that his kindness is a key part of his character, so Miller's writing isn't wrong. It isn't a misunderstanding of his character. She based this "anti-violence" version of him on Shakespeare's interpretation of his character, but Shakespeare was not wrong either. Shakespeare wrote what a kind man was in his time, and Miller wrote what a kind man is in her time based on the representation of kindness from previous time. And both of them are true. Both of them can be true, as well as all the prior.

People say Miller's characterization is wrong and could've not existed within the context of The Iliad or the Trojan war as a whole, for which I say: this is symbolic. The Trojan war is symbolic, is mythological, it does not exist. Is a lesson on moral ambiguity within the context of war and how a man's life is not worth more than other's (and a bunch of other things). It's relevant, it transcends time. It can be adapted and reinterpreted to give that same lesson in different historical contexts.

Why do we keep learning about The Iliad? Why does it matter? Why should it matter, if people are so insisten on the fact that it happened in ancient times to ancient people within ancient contexts? Because it is still relevant. War is still relevant. We cannot just say "oh, those old Greeks!" And rub our hands off because it doesn't apply to us. A modern reinterpretation of these old myths and characters are important for you to still understand the lessons these myths were meant to give in your modern context. And is not wrong to do so. Is not a "mischaracterization" or "misinterpretation". Is just another interpretation.

But that's just what I believe lmfao you're free to disagree with me

Summarizing: I don't believe you can really mischaracterize a mythological character as long as your characterization of said mythological character doesn't interfere with the purpose of their existence in the myth they are from. Patroclus is Achilles humanity and compassion, he stands out for his empathy, diplomacy and kindness. Madeline Miller does a great job of representing this, regardless of whether her representation of these traits differ from what they were like in an ancient context.

[ufopigeon]

to the random ass proshippers

I’ll block proshippers and I won’t throw any first punches if I find the accounts. Just block n’ move on. Think what you want, but think it away from me. This is for the ppl who are going after others both anonymously and in the open, and being insistent about misunderstanding his character. It is absolutely absurd that some are really trying to PUSH the mere implication that the Postal Dude could be a pedo/have pedophilic tendencies, or that “it makes sense for him”. Some of you are ragebait I’m sure, but I also sadly think some of you are really genuine. And this is also the last I am going to speak about it. Just wanted to do something longer on behalf of everyone else who does not agree with this random influx.

The Postal Dude is obviously designed to be an ambiguous character, allowing players to project various characteristics onto him. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that any and all negative traits can be justified. Ambiguity in character design is meant to give freedom in interpretation, but it doesn't equate to carte blanche for projecting extreme or inappropriate characteristics that aren't supported by the game’s narrative or the developer's intent. Assuming that a character would commit any and all bad acts simply because they commit some is a lazy and inaccurate approach to understanding character design.

The argument that, "Durrr he’s literally a mass shooter, why is it so far-fetched for him to be a pedo too?" is a slippery slope fallacy. It’s that same exact shit all the edgelords try to use when they say (just so they can justify attacking any queer fans, same way SOME proshippers want to feel justified in attacking those who disagree), “The Postal Dude SPECIFICALLY hates gay people and trans people and wouldn’t support them at all/be grossed out by them! Why? Uhh, because he’s literally an evil, vile character! Duh!” Sure he is. No denying that. And sure, you can think that about him. But it’s just fundamentally inaccurate. Just because the games allow for extreme behaviors doesn’t mean they endorse or include every possible immoral action.

And just because a character engages in morally questionable actions doesn’t logically lead to them engaging in the worst possible behaviors. The creator's stance is crucial in defining the boundaries of the character. If the creators have explicitly stated that Postal Dude would never engage in pedophilia (just like how they explicitly stated he wasnt transphobic) and that such content would never be included in the game, this is a definitive limitation on what the character can be reasonably interpreted as. Again, I don’t care if you hold a private opinion that differs. But when you start accusing those who disagree with this extreme interpretation of being the weird or wrong ones, that’s where it becomes an issue.

Dude's actions, while extreme, are presented within a certain context that aims to criticize or mock certain aspects of society. Pedophilia is not something that fits within this satirical style. Yes, even for Postal 1997. I don't care if it is generally considered more "serious" than other games, they still had Dude throwing out stupid-ass catchphrases in a silly radio-host-sounding voice that was obviously supposed to be a stark contrast to what was happening on screen (“Buttsauce”. “Smells like chicken” when burning NPCs. Really now? Go ahead and listen to more from the original. They’re all silly one-liners.). It was a shock at the time and a bit of dark humor. Following games only increased this aspect.

All in all, Postal Dude’s actions, while immoral, are usually presented in a way that allows for some level of detachment or absurdity, keeping them within the realm of dark comedy. Yes, 1997 is still included here. It’s an absurd game. One man took out hundreds of people and was armed to the teeth, even with literal rocket launchers. His main weapon has infinite ammunition. It was an obviously over-the-top video game with a loose connection to reality and an even looser message about “something something mental health and everyone has it in them to go postal”. It was a game made to shock people. Pedophilia, however, is universally considered an irredeemable act, something that cannot be framed in any context that would make it acceptable or even darkly humorous. The distinction between immoral and irredeemable acts is crucial here. The Postal Dude can be morally ambiguous, but crossing into irredeemable territory would fundamentally alter the character in a way that the game and its creators/99.9% of the fans do not support.

Also: “But muh 1997 promo art where it says his girlfriend was 17!! She says they just started dating 3 weeks ago!!” Yeah. The same photo was used with the girl also saying, “It was so weird. He told everyone I was his girlfriend, but I only met him once.” It says “live” near the bottom corner, implying this was an interview with the girl AFTER the crimes had taken place. In the promotional pic where it states she’s 17, it also says she DIED of third degree burns while he was on his rampage. Now that doesn’t really add up, does it. How can this girl give an interview after everything is said and done while also dying in the middle of his killing spree?

AKA, these promotional photos were reused over and over because they were on a budget and really not thinking about it, and are absolutely not valid for legit storytelling purposes at all. RWS has even said this themselves.

[zukosdualdao]

i know some people take the moment of azula speaking up in the flashback to the war meeting in sozin's comet as azula trying to "protect zuko" after he starts (while carefully choosing his words) disagreeing with ozai, but i really can't see it that way.

even aside from the fact that i don't think we should ever argue that her advocating for genocide here was a good thing, based on everything else about their relationship, i can't see this moment as anything but her once again trying to establish dominance and superiority over zuko. it actually reminds me of a different scene, all the way back from the flashbacks in zuko alone.

in both situations, ozai is testing his children in a way, and when zuko can't or won't give the "right answer", azula interjects and is able to say exactly what he wants to hear.

in zuko alone, of course, ozai is asking them questions that seem to be related to whatever (heavily inundated with propaganda, clearly) schooling they get. something that i find really interesting is that zuko doesn't seem to only struggle with firebending, but with his schooling as well. which isn't exactly surprising: abused kids often have trouble in school, and that seems particularly likely when ozai is already treating zuko like he is weak, incompetent, and unworthy in other areas. it's a self-fulling prophecy, on ozai's part: he demeans zuko for not being good at firebending (and perhaps for not being good in school), and, because kids are very naturally going to clam up and not get better at something when they're treated as worthless for any perceived flaw, it affects his ability to build his skills or performance in school.

but i think there's also a way in which zuko probably struggles to keep up in school because he's receptive to the values ursa tries to instill in him from a young age. he probably doesn't realize the things they are learning are things that are morally wrong, but there's a way, at this point, in which he can't relate to them, can't understand the motives of why it would be considered a good thing to defeat an enemy in such a brutal way when it runs so counter to the values of kindness ursa is trying to instill in her children, be it by explaining that throwing bread at turtleducks is not nice or that we shouldn't wish death on other family members.

by contrast, the emphasis on azula here is that she's clearly fully bought into the propaganda, that she respects and admires the brutality of the tactics. (also, is it just me, or does she sound a little like she's reciting a textbook, albeit with a lot of glee?) and notably, at the end, when she gets the answer 'right', she side-eyes zuko with a smug smirk. just like she does in sozin's comet as she's told she's right.

just for comparison's sake:

the situation in the sozin's comet flashback is different, of course, because they're not being quizzed on their schoolwork so much as they are being asked to put what they've learned about war and tactics into practice. zuko has a lot more understanding now than he did as a much younger child of the realities of war because he's seen it up close. and because of that, not only can he not condone or suggest any of the brutal and egregious tactics that are clearly expected of him, but he actually says something in defense of the earth kingdom, albeit trying to choose his words carefully, and with ozai (quite possibly willfully?) misinterpretating them.

to suggest that azula is protecting zuko here is its own form of a willful misinterpretation. you have to ignore the entire context of their relationship, azula's established motivations, and the tone of the scene itself to come to that conclusion. she does not interrupt zuko to keep him from saying something that will get him hurt, but because she wants to prove once again that she's better, that she's right and he's wrong, that he’ll never catch up. but zuko is starting to realize that he doesn’t and shouldn’t want to.

[theshinazugawaslut]

Which girl is suitable for Sanemi, in your opinion? And what kind of character or goals in life?

a/n: my genuine apologies for not being able to finish this sooner!

disclaimer: I will be mentioning things that Sanemi wouldn't be looking for in a partner but this is not to be taken personally.

To start off, I interpret Sanemi as a family-oriented man who would not be interesting in things like partying or hooking-up; he'd date to marry, and would only have sex if he loved you very dearly and trusted you with his life. I say this because Sanemi is a man who isolates himself from everyone he loves but also has a deep respect for women, he wouldn't wish to be like his father (and even without the idea of his abusive father, Sanemi would disagree with ideas like being a fuckboy or making bad decisions). This is not to hate on anyone who does do these sort of things, this is just how I imagine Sanemi to be and what makes most sense regarding his character.

I'm going to split this into little mini-sections with little examples and explanations as well: What Sanemi wouldn't like and what Sanemi would like.

What Sanemi Would Like/Need:

Someone of unshakeable character and a strong moral compass; meaning that the person should be resilient and strong-minded, not easily swayed by others.

Someone family-oriented; this would be incredibly important to Sanemi. He is someone who places great importance on his own mother and siblings hence he'd wish for someone who holds the same importance on their own family as well. This would also play into the fact that Sanemi would want children, so he'd unconsciously want someone who is good with kids and would also want children.

Someone humble, down-to-earth, and simple. Spoiled brats and stuck-up people would make Sanemi strangle someone.

Someone kind-hearted and patient; the most ideal sort of kindness would be someone who is Tanjiro-level. Someone who could calm him down, help him rationalise himself, or help him figure out his emotions during tough times. He'd like someone who is selfless and tender.

Emotionally intelligent. He'd unconsciously need this in a partner due to the fact he is usually unable to express and verbalise his feels so having someone understand him would mean the whole world to him.

Due to his pessimistic nature/thoughts, he'd need someone who can see good in people/things. He's not looking for an overly optimistic, happy person who believes all is good in the world but instead he's looking for someone who can separate right from wrong, acknowledge the darkness of the world and still choose to make and see the best.

Goals-wise — someone ambitious or determined. He doesn't care if your goal is to crochet the world's best handbag or have three kids or open a florist shop, as long as you love it! Someone who rambles a lot would be endearing to him since he likes to just listen.

Feminine. By this, I don't mean someone who looks feminine but someone who acts feminine, someone overall gentle and nurturing, someone he could trust to slice his heart open gently and kiss him so fucking sweet after.

What Sanemi Wouldn't Like/Want:

Somebody who is too social. This isn't to say he wants you cooped up inside the house all the time with no one around you but Sanemi wouldn't be very big on placing a lot of emphasis on friends; he'd rather you and him hang out together all the time so if you dislike clinginess in the sense he will go with you to the gym, shops, salon, your family, then you and Sanemi are definitely not made for each other. So if you're someone who constantly wants to have friends over and go out with friends, he'd most likely find himself bored and slightly irritated even if he won't say anything. He doesn't understand why some people care about their friends so much; if you were hanging out with siblings or parents, he's totally up for it, but he's more iffy about friends. To add to this, Sanemi would really appreciate someone who gets along with family and he'll definitely get along for yours.

People who go partying/clubbing. Sanemi would dislike this because he thinks there are much better ways to spend his time and he overall dislikes the idea of drinking. He probably thinks bars and clubs are immature and a waste of time. He thinks if you can't have fun sober, then you're no fun at all. Overall, he doesn't like the things associated with partying/clubbing culture, and he feels like it's not an overall good place to be. He won't judge people who do it but he definitely wouldn't like it in his own partner.

Hook-up/one-night-stands; Sanemi would never partake in this sort of culture in the first place and I don't think he'd ever go with someone who does. He has different values and beliefs that don't really align with that sort of culture, so I think it'd be very unlike he date/marry someone who partook in it. This isn't for people to get offended but he'd rather someone chaste like himself.

Someone who is always angry. I see this trope in fanfictions a lot but I don't think Sanemi would pair very well with someone who is snappish/brutish like him; he doesn't want you to be a whimpering, pathetic mess, but I don't think he's ever going to fall for someone like himself, he prefers serenity in his partners.

Argumentative. You'll both just end up heartbroken and in a very badly chaotic relationship. It would never work out.

If you don't want kids. He wants kids, he loves them and really wants his own, and you'd probably find a problem later in your life with him if you really don't want kids. He'd never force you or try to push it on to you but he'd feel really sad on the inside.

[forsoobado137]

Hi! Ik you mainly focus on the FACE family but do you have any headcanons about Germany in the public nations au? Love your public nations Tumblr posts btw

Oh Germany probably HATES being in the spotlight. It's not like he has super bad stage fright. He's more than happy to do the hard work that comes with being a nation. But he just doesn't understand why people see everything he does as a noteworthy event. He'll see edits of himself just doing normal shit and will not comprehend why there are so many likes.

In interviews and public appearances, he's completely serious. He wants to put out a good image for his country, and tries really hard to do it. This kind of backfired, because now he keeps getting invited to game shows so the German people can see him laugh and be silly. Of course, he can't refuse because he feels obligated to his job.

I also think he's used a LOT in PSAs. So much so that it's become a bit of a meme both in Germany and abroad. I imagine it becomes a trend to almost do something bad but then a clip of Germany going "Stop!" and scolding the viewer plays, and then follow his instructions lmao. Abroad, the trend is more "When I'm about to jaywalk but the hot German NP tells me to stop."

I think he's super inactive on social media. Most social media appearances are from other nation's post (especially Italy and France). When he does post, it's either because his boss told him to, his dogs did something adorable, or he's at a festival and has loosened up after a few drinks.

I also think that Germany feels a lot of shame about his past. Some people try to paint him as a heartless villain, especially in the context of WW2. Don't get me wrong, he has done some horrible things, and was complacent with the German government at the time, but he disagreed with his old boss' extreme views, and didn't really have a choice. I feel like a lot of people in the Hetalia universe will see these complex, morally gray situations nations are trapped in and take away all nuance. After all, It's easier to scapegoat one person who embodies the nation rather than hold accountable the many criminals and monsters behind atrocities.

[throwingawayhailstones]

Some interesting thoughts on Sonic's ideals (particularly in IDW)

*hides behind a fallen tree*

I honestly really like how he's portrayed in IDW. People harp on his morals and all that but I think the writers are trying to say something about people who have his mindset.

Sonic wants everyone to have the freedom to change. He prefers to spare his enemies when he has the choice and wants to save people because he's a good guy. Though it's clear he won't get too hung up if someone dies because of their own actions (see: Starline. Also the end of unleashed and forces. Sonic had no reason to think Eggman survived and was cool with it. Like he won't actively go out of his way to confirm a kill is what I'm saying). The problem with this is what if they don't ever choose to change? Sonic wants Metal to come around like Omega. He doesn't have to be a good guy perse but like maybe stop trying to kill him on sight and stop plotting you know? But we all know as long as Eggman exists that can't happen because he'll just reprogram Metal. And Eggman. He doesn't exactly "spare" Eggman but since he doesn't go out of his way to like kill him, despite being fully able to, Eggman can get back up and terrorize more people.

This leads to people like Surge and Kit and Lanolin who were deeply and personally hurt by Eggman (Starline came from Eggman) and blame Sonic because he's the one who has the power to stop him but doesn't take the initiative.

See the thing is, Sonic can only justify letting them go because he knows he'll just stop him the next time they shows up. He says this explicitly when he lets Metal go. He can go around with this confidence because he is strong. What about the normies? People like Lanolin? They don't get to do that because they aren't powerful. That's why they have shit like "jail".

We see how important being powerful is to Sonic's beliefs in the Metal Virus arc. Suddenly he can't whisk people out of harm's way. He can't spindash through his problems. You see his confidence crumble and you see him venting his frustrations at Eggman and Metal. You see him actually threatening to basically kill Eggman by infecting him.

He does understand why people don't like him and why they find his ideals frustrating. He's been in enough rough spots to empathize. He just believes that he's fast enough to deal with fallout.

He also isn't directly "forcing" anyone to adhere to his ideals. He believes in freedom so people have the freedom to disagree even if he doesn't like the outcome (see: metal). The problem is because of the scale (see: forces) people have to deal with the collateral damage. People have the freedom to change so you gotta deal with Eggman firebombing you crops every few months because you live too close to his base sorry bestie. Sonic is fast enough to save the day but because he's a *reactive* force rather than a *proactive* one, theres always going to be victims.

This reactive thing also funnily enough mirrors boost gameplay lmao

Will he change? No, probably not. But he'll def get tossed around the blender a few more times.

[gartenofbanny]

Morally, gray characters are those with complex motivations or goals that aren't simply right or wrong. One of my favorite morally gray characters in fiction is Jason Todd from DC. The second Robin that Batman failed to save, who ended up dying at the hands of the Joker and resurrected by Ra's Al Ghul.

Given a second chance at life, he comes to a revelation that villains should NOT be left alive. Villains, especially the Joker, have caused the suffering of thousands of people, as said by Jason Todd in Under The Red Hood.

Leaving villains alive will risk more innocent lives and graveyards to be filled when it easily could have been prevented.

But there is an opposite argument that does have merit to it. In DC, there is a crook turned superhero named Plastic Man who, after multiple chances, turned his life around for the better.

At the end of the day, Jason is ending a human life. A life with the potential to convert and change for the better. They're capable of changing, but it's a risky game to play. This is what makes Jason Todd a morally gray character. You understand his motivations, and depending on who you are, you agree or disagree with his actions. There is no easy answer for a topic like this.

So, what about Alastor? Well, he's just not a good person at all. Does he do some good things? Yeah, but he mostly does them in exchange, which will benefit him. He doesn't do anything out of the kindness of his heart (if he even has one), nor does he do stuff, which he believes is right.

So, as always, this blog will be separated into two sections listing the reasons why I don't believe Alastor is morally gray, starting off with status.

Alastor is an Overlord who makes contracts with other demons to get them to submit their souls. Alastor has many souls in his possession, including Husk, and he holds all of them in for power. Immediately, this is not what a morally gray character is. I have yet to see a morally gray character who enslaves other people just to further their goals because that's just what an evil person would do.

And it's not like Alastor had no choice or did it for the greater good or did it to simply defend himself. He ambushed Overlords, took their souls, and broadcasted their fucking screams across Hell to show the denizens of Hell that he means business. He wants people to be afraid of him or respect him for his power.

Secondly, there's just him as a person. He genuinely sucks. Everything he does, he usually does it for himself or because he's told to by a higher power. He helps Charlie just so he could watch the Sinners fail for laughs. He helps Vaggie with the commercial so he wouldn't have to make one ever again. He makes a deal with Charlie in exchange for a favor he'll likely use to his advantage in the future. All of these "kind" actions are usually in exchange for something else, he doesn't do anything out of the kindness of his heart just to further his own agenda.

And if you really think about it, Alastor contributed very little to the hotel despite making a deal with Charlie that he would help her. They only got one new patron, which was Sir Pentious, and it stayed that way for 6 months. Apparently, Charlie, Vaggie, and Alastor suck at their job if they can't bring any new members lmao. And no, just because a villain did something nice for once doesn't make them morally gray.

Thanos helped an old lady cross the street just so he could ruin some woman's life, that definitely doesn't make him morally gray.

Morally, gray characters are complicated, and that's what makes them interesting. Alastor isn't complicated. He's just a power-hungry psycho who eats people and wants to have fun. He's the perfect example of simplicity.

Just because Alastor will potentially be a morally gray character or complicated character in the future doesn't mean he is one now. And I say potentially because the writers of Hazbin and Helluva like to set things up with underwhelming payoffs. But that's a future blog for a different day.

In conclusion, Alastor is not a good person. He's a bad guy, and just because he's the protagonist doesn't make him any less evil or any more good. Anyway, thanks for reading, and I hope you all have a good one. ❤️‍🔥

[homicidal-sheep]

I will defend Eurylochus to my dying breath because what the fuck yall, he is not the malicious monster people are making him out to be?? Like these characters are so morally grey its not even funny.

I love Ody with all my heart but the man did fuck up. He is human, and a plaything of the Gods, which is a very dangerous position to be in at the best of times.

I've seen people saying Eury has no moral high ground on the Scylla thing because he wanted to leave all the men at Circe's. Now firstly, I highly doubt a simple scouting mission would include all the men (see Cyclops saga, when only a fraction went). So they would be running to save what men remained, not ditching the entire army. Secondly, what exactly did you want them to do when facing Circe? They didn't know Hermes was there. All they knew was there was a magic lady who could turn people into pigs. So what, were they gonna ask really really nicely? Somehow I highly doubt that would work. Without the Gods intervention, I just don't see them winning. Eury was cutting their losses because from his POV, there was quite literally nothing they could do for the men. Best case scenario they snuck the men/pigs out and, idk, kept them as pets??

As for the wind bag, yeah it was a really dumb decision. But Ody is the one who decided not to trust his men, especially Eury. Ody has already given up on the crew, and they likely feel that distrust. Why should they put their blind faith in a man who refuses to clue them in? Why should they believe that he has whats best for them in their hearts? Ody's own guilt caused him to embrace an ideology that got a bunch of them killed. (remember when he said the only one who's lines he hasn't crossed were his own?) And we can see some of this growing resentment in Perimedes cut song. We as viewers have context the men simply do not.

Sidenote, people say Eury would have gotten them lotus'd. Yeah maybe. or maybe Ody would have recognized the fruit before they ate it, like he did with Polites. We cannot know.

The other point I keep seeing, that I find absolutely baffling is "well they deserved to die for mutinying, they should have listened to their king and captain" I'm sorry when did we all become monarchists. Kings and captains can absolutely make bad decisions? We should not blindly trust authority?? Yeah Eury kept questioning the captain. He was second in command and the voice of the crew, not only is he voicing their discontent, I'd argue that a good king should have someone who is willing to disagree with them. While Ody is right, that in the middle of a dire situation isn't great, and it would have been better to address those issues in private, they are very legitimate worries. If your captain has admitted he would burn the world to see his son and wife, I think being a little worried is absolutely fair.

The Gods keep appearing and helping Ody but they are also incredibly dangerous beings who constantly play with the lives of mortals.

On to the cow thing. Ya it was fucking dumb. But I can understand why. The man is fucking tired. They don't see a way out and at that point, starving to death slowly, so desperately afraid, probably sounded like a terrifying fate. Better to get it over with.

And he still cares! Ody is his literal brother in law. They bandaged his wounds when they could have idk, sacrificed him to Posideon or something. What Ody did to them was 100% betrayal and I understand why they mutinied, with what information they had. For petes sake he kept singing "I need to get home", I, not we.

Again, I love Ody, but good lord, the man is the definition of an unreliable narrator. Let them all be complicated, tragic characters without labeling them as cookie cutter good guys and bad guys.

[burst-of-iridescent]

You constantly portray Katara (in your posts and in your "dissertation") like some damsel in distress who is in a codependent relationship and does not defend her opinion in front of her partner, to the point that she allows him to mistreat her children. But the basis of her character is that she will never tolerate any shit from anyone. She always defends her opinion, and she does not oppose Aang precisely because their values are basically the same with Aang. You cannot agree with this, because then you would either have to admit that Aang is not the terrible person you paint him, or that Katara is not the perfect girl you want her to be. That is why you are forced to humiliate her and completely rewrite her character, just not to admit that she is in an equal relationship with Aang and their values coincide.

In addition, such a "katara" makes even less sense for zutara, because if her character has a tendency to codependence on her partner and a willingness to tolerate shit from him, then their relationship with Zuko would not be healthy, since Zuko is prone to self-pity, selfishness and outbursts of anger even after his redemption and he does not show even a tenth of the maturity that Aang has by the end of the show (and even if you do not agree with this, I hope you understand that if there is a tendency to codependent relationships in a person's character, then this tendency is realized in any relationship, regardless of the partner. And any such relationship will be unhealthy).

well i lost braincells reading this so i expect reparations for that, but i'm in a nice, salty mood today so... sure anon, i'll bite.

She always defends her opinion, and she does not oppose Aang precisely because their values are basically the same with Aang.

you must really dislike katara, because saying that the only reason she never challenged aang is because she never disagreed with him, rather than that her idealization of him blinded her to his flaws is... so much worse. are you telling me she thought it was right for him to recklessly burn her? or yell at her in the desert and abandon her to take care of sokka and toph alone? or kiss her without her consent? or give their airbending child preferential treatment over their other two children?

because katara doesn't hold aang to account for any of the things on that (non-exhaustive) list, and if your explanation for that is that she agreed with him, then we both know who here is really bastardizing katara's character.

do katara and aang share certain core values? sure. they're both kind, compassionate and hopeful people. but saying that katara's morals are "basically the same" as aang's is objectively untrue when they clash in both the southern raiders and sozin's comet over their personal moral codes on the sanctity of life and whether taking one can ever be justified.

neither of these conflicts are ever truly resolved, even by the end of the show. katara and aang never come to any sort of understanding or middle ground, or even raise the subject ever again, despite it being clear that they don't share the same perspective. katara even explicitly rejects aang's creed of blanket forgiveness by stating that she did not forgive yon rha and never will. i don't know about you, but that feels like a pretty major difference of opinion to me.

additionally, the fact that these are the only two times in the entire show that katara actually pushes back against aang's beliefs and decisions - and stands firm on it - proves my point, because she's only able to do so when she has absolutely no other choice. it's only the trauma of her mother's murder and the literal fate of the entire world that forces katara to challenge aang rather than excuse and coddle him. and that is unhealthy both for aang and katara, because an equal partner should be able to call you out on your flaws and mistakes without first having to be backed into a corner to do it.

That is why you are forced to humiliate her and completely rewrite her character, just not to admit that she is in an equal relationship with Aang and their values coincide.

i really adore this recent trend in atla fandom of insisting that it's zutara shippers who are responsible for adultifying katara or humiliating katara or any and all problems that exist within katara's narrative as if we personally wrote the show instead of just... pointing out what already exists in canon.

i'm not the one who robbed katara of all agency in her relationship, or refused to give her arc equal narrative space with aang's, or turned her into a subservient trophy wife with no legacy or voice. you can go take that up with the creators.

believe me anon, i wish i could manipulate canon for my nasty zutara agenda, but alas you can't have everything in life.

Zuko is prone to self-pity, selfishness and outbursts of anger even after his redemption and he does not show even a tenth of the maturity that Aang has by the end of the show

zuko didn't throw a hissy fit because the girl he liked didn't like him back, pressure her for an answer, force a kiss on her, or be preachy and judgemental towards her during one of the most difficult times of her life - but hey, whatever floats your boat.

(thank you for providing no evidence, by the way. saved me a ton of time reading more batshit insane misinterpretations of canon, or lies, or both.)

In addition, such a "katara" makes even less sense for zutara, because if her character has a tendency to codependence on her partner and a willingness to tolerate shit from him, then their relationship with Zuko would not be healthy I hope you understand that if there is a tendency to codependent relationships in a person's character, then this tendency is realized in any relationship, regardless of the partner.

i'm genuinely bamboozled as to why you seem to think that i called katara codependent, because i didn't. i don't think katara and aang are codependent, and i have never once said that. but i understand that sending anonymous, bad-faith arguments is a difficult, underappreciated job, so let's take the hypothetical and assume i did to help you out.

fictional characters are not real people, and so it is possible for them to have different dynamics with different characters. that's why i can ship taang or zutara or mailee but not kat.aang or mai.ko. because each of these relationships are written to fulfil different narrative purposes, the characters involved are not doomed to repeat the same patterns of behaviour in each relationship as real people might be - and the difference between the zutara and kat.aang interactions in canon proves it.

[theweeklydiscourse]

tw: mention of CSA and abuse

just saw your recent reblog about Nosferatu and idk what is your actual take on it but i've to disagree with the op saying <this is not a story about grooming nor abuse... it can be,> the movie is very obviously and directly concerned about sexual abuse and the uncomfortable eroticism only enhances the horror of the whole situation. i just find posts that constantly need to mention "it's not about abuse it really isn't!" entirely dishonest and intentionally denying the very obvious theme of the movie just so they don't have to face the fact that they liked a ship that is as noncon as it gets. it is essentially a grooming rapist/victim relationship which obviously makes people uncomfortable to admit which is why they don't want to acknowledge that. and that explains the vehement push back against the SA narrative (which isn't a simple interpretation but very much what literally happens in the movie). i just think that people need to just start being honest with themselves like there's nothing wrong if you end up liking an absolutely fucked up dynamic and the whole “death and the maiden” of it all but please stop with the "this isn't a story of abuse" takes because that is actually harmful. not the shipping but denying the fact that this is a movie about abuse because it has led to some very horrible takes of rape apologism with people saying "it's not abuse because she called to him so it can't be" like... no. just no.

There are a few issues at play in the current discourses surrounding Nosferatu. First, one side makes sweeping generalizations about what the film is definitively about, and then the other side counters it with its own sweeping statements. This predictably gives way to certain over-corrections in the discourse that try to find an absolute answer to subject matter that is up for audience interpretation. I actually had a similar thought occur to me when I read that quote in that particular post, and I say that as someone who is really into the "Death and the Maiden" dynamic. We're talking about a film that provides more than enough support for multiple interpretations and it's frustrating that people reject other people's ideas so they can have the *one ultimate correct* take on it.

This issue is exacerbated by the current internet climate of moralizing textual interpretations and the lack of understanding surrounding the genre Nosferatu belongs to. Gothic fiction often features taboo subject matter that is considered by many to be off-putting and disturbing, and usually, that leads to the judgement of those who enjoy it. The reason that people are overcorrecting by saying that it's not about abuse is responding to the denial of the existence of themes of repression, desire and love in the film. It's a phenomenon I also find irritating. Viewers who are totally unfamiliar with the kinds of themes and subject matter gothic fiction deals with seem to be imposing only one possible interpretation of the text while acting like people are immoral for thinking otherwise.

I also consider Robert Eggers's words in my own reading of the film. In an interview, Eggers noted that his approach to the film was informed by the trope of the "demon lover" and even referred to the relationship between Ellen, Orlok, and Thomas as a love triangle. The film is explicitly erotically charged in a manner that can be taken either way, and I believe that both interpretations are valid ones. Outright denial of interpretations of Ellen and Orlok's relationship as abusive seems foolish to me. But I also get why people might be uncomfortable fully acknowledging the more twisted nature of their dynamic. Nobody wants to get labelled as an abuse apologist over fictional matters or shipping, and there are times when merely engaging with darker subject matter gets people labelled as such. However, people need to stop being so absolutist about these things and learn to substantively engage with differing viewpoints.

I think that the online tendency to moralize fictional preferences plays a large role in people's resistance to being honest with themselves about liking taboo subjects or twisted dynamics. There's nothing wrong with liking it, but it's hard to do so openly without incurring some form of criticism and contempt. Denial gets us nowhere.

[thewistlingbadger]

I've seen people make the argument that if you like/support Ellie Williams or Abby Anderson from The Last of Us Part Two, then you should be fine with Caitlyn Kiramman's actions in Arcane season two and I'm gonna break down why I disagree with this.

It's true that both TLOU 2 and S2 arcane are revenge stories and have similar story beats. Caitlyn Kiramman is a cop who comes from a privileged family and she ends up losing her mom, Cassandra Kiramman, in a terrorist attack against her city. The terrorist responsible for the attack is Jinx, the sister of Caitlyn's romantic interest. In the first season it's clear she has a good heart that ends up being corrupted by revenge in the second season. Caitlyn becomes so blinded by her hatred for Jinx she ends up pushing away those closest to her and she comes heinous, discriminatory crimes against the lower class.

Ellie Williams starts off TLOU series as a little girl who's sarcastic and lonely and also immune to a deadly zombie virus. She forms a father/daughter like relationship with a man named Joel Miller, the man tasked with ensuring Ellie makes it to a hospital on the other side of the country in order for a cure to be made for the virus. Ellie ends up living with Joel in a safe haven after they make it to the hospital, because according to Joel while Ellie was unconscious in the hospital, it was revealed that Ellie wasn't the only person who was immune and they didn't need her to make a cure. As Ellie gets older, she uncovers the truth: Making a cure from Ellie would have killed her and so Joel not only stopped the cure from being made, but he also killed everyone in the hospital. This causes a heavy strain on their relationship and Joel ends up being murdered right in front of Ellie before she ever got the opportunity to make amends with Joel. This makes Ellie go on a quest to kill Joel's murderer and in the process she ends up killing countless people and she loses everything to her lust for vengeance.

Ellie and Caitlyn have a few similarities but the similarity that's most important for the sake of this post is the fact that they lose a parent and end up losing their morals on their path to vengeance. For me personally, there're two reasons why I hold Caitlyn and Ellie on different levels.

1. Relationship

Both of the last of us games focus on the relationship between Joel and Ellie. In the first game alone you spend hours upon hours with the two characters. You're there for their ups and downs and you watch them go from strangers to people who genuinely care for each other. You can only really care about a relationship if you spend time with them, and in arcane, we spend no time with Caitlyn and Cassandra. We understand that their relationship is a bit strained because they have different perspectives on life, but this is the only thing we can really say about their relationship. The closest we get to them having some kind of positive moment is when Cassandra makes sure Caitlyn and Vi get an audience with the council and when Cassandra gives Caitlyn a nod to go after Vi after she leaves. This is all we have for this relationship. So realistically, outside of the fact that Cassandra is Caitlyn's mom, why should I care that Cassandra is dead? Like I said, we don't see anything substantial from their relationship. Not in flashbacks or during Cassandra's life or after her death. We never even see Caitlyn really grieve the loss of her mother. She never sheds a single tear for her. She talks about how her mom's death has left a hole in her and she talks about how it feels impossible to live up to her mom's legacy, but this doesn't really tell us anything about Caitlyn actually FEELS about her mom or her death. We never even see Caitlyn feel any kind of way to the fact that her relationship with her mom ended while they weren't on good terms. When Joel goes in TLOU 2, we see exactly how it impacts Ellie. We see her mourn his death and we see her frustration in losing him and how she struggles with remembering him exactly. We see how she's tortured by the fact they left things on bad terms and also by the fact that Joel maintained a lie for years. We understand exactly why she's doing what she's doing, even as she pushes to newer extremes. We don't have this for Caitlyn. For Caitlyn, it seems at the start that she's doing it for her mom and that makes sense, but then we see Caitlyn take on a much bigger role in society and it just seems odd and unnatural. It doesn't feel like it's about her mom anymore.

2. Damage

Ellie gets consumed by vengeance. She loses her friends, her girlfriend, her personality, everything. And she keeps going too, she keeps hurting her enemies and her allies. Ellie has killed so many people on all sides it's genuinely gross. But not as gross as what Caitlyn does. Caitlyn doesn't kill anyone in her mother's name that we know of, but Caitlyn uses her grief to oppress the lower class of the nation of zaun. She gasses the city which leaves its citizens sick and afraid. She sets up borders and checkpoints in the city and treats innocents like they're criminals. Caitlyn's heartbreak over her mom's death is used to discriminate against others and Ellie's grief is NOT used to do that at all. For Ellie, anyone who stands in her way for vengeance is against her but Caitlyn villainizes the entirety of the undercity.

I've also seen people compare Caitlyn to Abby Anderson, who in TLOU kills Joel in front of Ellie because years ago, Joel killed Abby's father. Although we don't see much of the relationship between Abby's dad and Abby, we can understand the severity of his loss because we see how it impacts Abby and we know his death was undeserved. Abby's dad was a good man and a doctor. He helped people and cared for those in his community. The only reason he was killed was because Joel shot him in order to save Ellie. Abby doesn't witness her dad's death firsthand like how Ellie does, but she does walk in on her dad's dead body, and we see her anguish at the sight. Cassandra Kiramman was not innocent. She was a member of Piltover's council, the political body responsible for the oppression of the lower class. We know she had prejudice against those from the undercity. This is another reason why I lack sympathy for Cassandra and her relationship with Caitlyn but have it for Abby and her dad. TLOU 2 shows us how the death of her father still haunts her years after its occurrence, and it also shows us how even after she got her revenge, she still felt the emptiness his death left her with. Again, Arcane really doesn't explore how Cassandra's death truly impacts Caitlyn.

[nerdygaymormon]

I talked with my mother in law about disagreeing with the august policy and she kept faily neutral and said God made that policy and His children make the choice to stray from Him. While i believe the policy was inspired i dont believe it came from His mouth. I don't understand how transitioning is straying, it feels like a morally neutral act. How can God ask someone to sacrifice their emotional and mental well being to keep their good standing with Him? It feels backwards and manipulative if I'm being honest. Obedience is good but not if it comes at the cost of being miserable. I'm angry at the church as an institution and I believe it's failing it's queer and trans siblings. I suppose I do disagree with God.

You ask some really good questions. I want to add a few more for you to consider.

Are scriptures the "word of God" and does God actually speak these things to a human who hears it and writes it down precisely as God said it, or are these human interpretations of what they believe is God's will?

Is this policy leading people to be more loving and to do good to their neighbor?

Why would God make people gay or trans and then forbid them from being gay or trans?

The Book of Mormon teaches we're meant to have joy in life, then why does the LDS Church have policies to deny joy to queer people? Why are they singled out to be miserable for God?

If gender affirming care for trans people is "straying" from God, why is gender affirming care for cis people not? The medical procedures that trans people use were all originally developed for cis people. People get breast augmentations, hysterectomies, nose jobs, tummy tucks, face lifts, pec implants, lip filler, bbl's, hormone injections, puberty blockers, growth hormones, and on and on.

At the last General Conference, Elder Oaks put forth a unique idea about temporary and permanent commandments. I think it's his way of getting around the idea that church leaders in the past were wrong, but it brings up interesting questions, if this is temporary then am I required to obey even if I don't agree? If this is temporary, will I be punished in heaven after it is no longer in effect?

We're taught in Matthew 7 that “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” If a policy is bringing forth bad results for a whole group of people, is it a 'good' policy?

Is it a coincidence that this step backwards with the August policy seems related to the bathroom bills and other anti-trans legislation that's recently been passed? If this is actually God's will then how come we didn't know it in 2020 when the last big revision to church policies regarding trans people was implemented?

What if a trans person feels they are inspired to pursue transitioning, should the church be punishing them for following where God is guiding them?

Does this policy sound like it's from a loving God?

That’s enough questions. I want to end with 3 points.

The August policy is just that, a policy, not a commandment or revelation or scripture. Policies are temporary and can be changed. A great example is the 2015 policy of exclusion regarding gay people, which was reversed less than 5 years later in 2019. How much better if it the 2015 policy had never been introduced and all that hurt had been avoided.

You're not disagreeing with God, you're disagreeing with whomever wrote and approved the latest policies.

People have a conscience, what the church calls the light of Christ, which influences people for good. If things being said by a church leader bother your conscience, pay attention to that.

[almacambiondaughterofsaleos]

It's More Than Just A Mistake, Charlie

This comment just rubs me so much the wrong way because they are not here just for making mistakes but for as Adam and Lute showed continually making evil decisions through life and having no remorse for it. And again we see a lot of examples of it not just being mistakes but also horrible actions that wound them in hell. Seriously, look at the things the sinner do and don't downplay it as mistakes.

Seriously, these images above would disprove that made a few mistakes bs. They are horrible people who are willing to be evil pos and get away with it. And again Valentino is the prime example and after being licked by him you would think she would reevaluate why Adam and Lute aren't keen on redeeming sinners, because they do shit like this. Seriously, there is a whole cannibal town that glorifies eating people. And again that party scene with Sir Pentious where it's supposed to be a test to show Angel could get into heaven, but ignores the fact that everyone allowed Pentious to be sexually assaulted which again shows how skewed the show's priorities are.

It makes the narrative over at the episode of "Cherub" even more skewed because the idea was the Cherubs were obviously opportunists just trying to make Lipton turn over a new leaf, while it's obvious he was a pos man who should just die. However, Hazbin Hotel expects us to just see him as a man who made mistakes alongside his equally evil partner. It's again an example of confused morals because it seems like it just wants us to side with whatever protagonist is there and they have the narrative's favor despite the other side having a point.

Also from Hazbin itself I think a big example of the just made a few mistakes is Angel Dust. The current series emphasizes his promiscuity and drug use and treats it as if that was all he did in life and weren't really that bad (which I would disagree). However, I do think this is a result of whitewashing what has been previously known about Angel Dust is that he had mafia ties and that means he wasn't just making minor mistakes but full blown into crime and do some evil shit. And we are supposed to be siding with Emily why he's not in heaven, when he just recently was still being someone who reveled in being a sinner. It's a reason why the rehabilitation theme doesn't work because it doesn't treat the issues the characters have as severe as it is. They treat them as if they are just pissing on the floor and not the fact some of these guys like Angel Dust have blood on their hands. It's almost like due to her biases Charlie has a rose tinted view of things that contradicts what awful people they were and continued to be in life.

And let's talk about Adam, this guy is just an example to try to downplay how sinners made those mistakes by portraying him as a one dimensional immature sadist in other to make it seem barbaric. However, it still doesn't erase that monsters still end up down there despite the bs ass pull that the angels themselves don't know how to get into heaven. Let's be honest from what we have seen from the sinners they are in hell for a reason and there is no attempts to think why they should be given a second chance after showing what pos they are still. And again the show doesn't want to admit that these sinners aren't that way because of never being given a chance they probably had chances and squashed them. But again Charlie has to be right and never challenged so she can't think about how her stance can be shaky.

I do think the dimissmal of just mistakes they made actually goes against the spirit of redeeming them because it doesn't really understand the gravity of what these sinners did. It's because according to the narrative (and Charlie) these are just souls that didn't have direction and need another chance. Sorry, but they did have direction in life and they have at one point stop being given chances. And again the series doesn't offer one example of a true sinner who didn't deserve to be down there since Vaggie herself was retconned to be an angel. The series really does wonders to shoot itself in the foot due to not understanding and tackling what redemption takes. And one thing it needs to be said that people have to admit they aren't always the victims and sometimes are the victimizers who have not only hurt themselves and others in their pursuit of sin.