#meta ethics

[theidealistphilosophy]

The first duty of love is to listen.

Paul Tillich, Source Unlisted.

[gghero]

9 hours 9 persons 9 doors is possibly the funniest game on replay for many reasons but my underrated comedic bit of knowledge is the mystery of how the Kurashikis got all the money to run the second nonary game because at some point if you remember the door 4 santa dialogue you gotta just conclude "it was probably gambling right I mean if I had postcognitive esp I would absolutely cheat at gambling" but then on replay you look at that scene and the options youre presented with and the implication is actually like "dont be ridiculous. gambling is stupid. we OBVIOUSLY used the postcognitive esp to cheat at the STOCK MARKET what kind of idiot are you"

[teamloyalty]

Adam Kadlac, The Ethics of Sports Fandom (2021)

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

you've given me too much animorphs inspiration (animorspiration?) and I'm now drowning. help. I wrote like half an essay on The Tragedy of David and how it's not really about whether he deserved a chance to change but the fact that they just straight up did not have the luxury (or tools) to give one. I think that while rachel's only regret is not giving him a clean kill, at the same time she would have done almost anything to be able to throw david at a competent adult role model and watch him face a nonlethal and constructive consequence for his actions.

I think a lot of things about david, too many for the little shit. he's such an asshole, he's cruel and sexist and so fucking unpleasant to read about I can barely imagine the horror of actually being in a room with him. but he's also just fucking thirteen. I want to grab him by the scruff of his neck and send him to therapy. even better I want a story where his family lives and it doesn't magically make him a decent person, he's still awful because he's goddamn david, and *then* he's dragged to a good therapy program and has a real incentive to change. also I guess the child soldier thing would be happening too in the background or whatever.

I couldn't agree more, with all of that. The decision to nothlit him (and kill him) is excruciatingly well-justified in canon. He's so despicable that I often want to reach through the page and throttle him. He reminds me of myself when I was a spoiled, damaged 13-year-old sick to death of being The New Kid at every school.

Maybe I was never quite that misogynistic. But at 13, I thought Light Yagami had the right approach to ethics. I thought the world would be better off if people would just shut up and give more power to the government. I was naive, I was awkward, I was a rich white kid with more experience being excluded than befriended and my social skills reflected that. Oh, and did I mention my obsession with snakes and horror comics and trying to shock adults? Because that's the root of my personal desire to stomp David's face in.

He's a normal kid, with normal problems, with a normal amount of teenage self-centeredness and temperamentalism. And the other Animorphs have basically no choice but to kill him to get him off their team. Because he's not ready for the tremendous soul-crushing responsibility they're forced to take on, to keep their species alive.

You know that old joke, about including exactly one normal athlete on every Olympic team so that we can really appreciate just how astoundingly good all the Olympians are? That's David, for the Animorphs. He's not superhumanly selfless, and he's the only one on the team for whom that's true.

[lgbtlunaverse]

It seems the dash has been talking about the Lan Xichen - Nie Huaisang post-canon dynamics and it's gotten me thinking about how discussion around post-canon Lan Xichen's absolutely horrendous mental state often center around the question of "who is Lan Xichen angry at and who does he feel guilty about" which, at its worst, seperates into 2 camps where according to one side he feels guilty about not protecting jgy and hates the Nies and, on the other side he has completely flipped on jgy and despises him now while being filled with regret towards both nmj and nhs.

And I dislike both of these takes not just because it often feels like people projecting their own Blorbo opinions onto Lan Xichen which is never a fun time but also because that central question is flawed to begin with. It treats anger and guilt like opposing emotions that can't coexist or, if they do, have to compete until one wins and cancels the other out.

And that's not how that... works.

To be clear, the reason why Lan Xichen is so supremely fucked up at the end of the story is that he believes on some level he fucked over everyone in this situation. And, even more importantly, that even with hindsight he can't actually think of what he should have done instead. Every attempt to do better by one seems to involve fucking over the others even more because these people were in conflict with each other and choosing one would mean standing against another

And none of this would actually stop him from feeling angry at any of them. It's not "who is he angry at and who does he feel guilty about" it's: "he is angry at everyone and feels an immediate and bone deep guilt for daring to think badly of them."

Speaking from personal experience here, but feeling like you're not allowed to be angry at someone because you wronged them really doesn't stop the feeling, it just maks you feel like shit for feeling it. And this is all worsened by the fact that what he's in seclusion for is, at the end of the day, a moral question of what he, Lan Xichen, did wrong and every single emotion serves as further proof of the ways he's failed them.

Is he angry at Jin Guangyao, for killing his oldest friend, using Lan xichen's trust in him to do it, and then lying to him about it and countless other things for a decade when Lan Xichen thought of him as the person he trusted the most in the entire world? Yeah. That's a thing people get angry about! Except Jin Guangyao also saved his life and protected and helped him more times than he can count and never ever hurt him and can Lan Xichen say the same? No. He had to clean A-Yao's blood off Shouyue, he has to be haunted by the fact that if he just hadn't listened to Huaisang- hadn't been just like everyone else, in the end, and believed a lie about Jin Guangyao just to think the worst of him- then Jin Guangyao might still be alive.

Is he angry at Huaisang? For orchestrating the death of his best friend? For making him do it? For knowing what the real cause behind Nie Mingjue's death was and never telling him until he found out in the absolute worst way? Absolutely. But didn't Huaisang hide it from him for a reason? Wasn't it his clan's techniques and his personal faith in Jin Guangyao that cost Huaisang his brother? How dare he demand that Huaisang let him in on the secret of his brother's murderer when Lan Xichen is here wondering about how he should have protected that murderer better!

And I do even think he's angry at Nie Mingjue, sometimes I think it's pretty normal to be angry at your friend for kicking your other friend down the stairs and threatening to kill him, even when you know his mind is being poisoned. And years later the last thing he ever saw of Nie Mingjue was Nie Mingjue's thoughtless corpse coming to kill him before Jin Guangyao pushed him away and then proceeded to graphocally snap Jin Guangyao's neck in front of him. And if what he wants to do is protect Jin Guangyao, shouldn't he be mad at Mingjue? Didn't this whole mess start because Jin Guangyao was afraid Nie Mingjue was going to kill him?

Except holy shit, can you imagine? Lan Xichen feels like he personally has Nie Mingjue's blood on his hands. Your oldest friend is killed in front of you and you happily believe it's an accident for 11 years and now you think you have the right to be mad at him? You watched him get worse as he was being poisoned and attributed it to his illness and not to the techniques stolen from your library with the token you give his murderer. Does he think Nie Mingjue knew who he was in that moment and wanted to kill him? That he blamed Lan Xichen for his death? (For the record, I don't. I don't agree with most of what Lan Xichen thinks about himself, but I've been in a self-blame spiral and I know how it feels)

But what was he supposed to do then? Choose Mingjue's side and let A-Yao die? That's also unacceptable. But so is letting Jin Guangyao get away with it. Every single outcome is unacceptable. And really, if Jin Guangyao felt like he had to kill Nie Mingjue to save himself, when it was Lan Xichen who was supposed to keep the peace between them, isn't that another mark of his failure? That he couldn't protect Jin Guangyao well enough that he felt he had to do something so horrible?

But that's not an answer! He's supposed to know what he should have done different, and all he can come up with is "what you were already doing, but without failing this time" He can't pick a side because that means betrayal, but he's already tried not picking a side and it ended like this! There is no right answer, which can only leave him with the idea that he was simply doomed to hurt the people he loved from the start. No wonder the guy looks like shit when we see him post-canon. They put him in a real life trolley problem and gave him the lever as a souvenir.

[artbyblastweave]

"Why does everyone hate the X-Men but love the Avengers and the Fantastic Four-" well, Ultimate Marvel had a pretty thematically coherent response to that question, namely that the Avengers (ultimates) are a CIA publicity stunt and the Fantastic Four are the superhuman equivalent of industrial runoff from a government backed think tank, while the X-Men are a self-directed clandestine militia-bordering-on-cult with cool-at-best relationships to the U.S. government (implicitly tolerated because the U.S. government considers them significantly more aimable than the Brotherhood of Mutants, who they nonetheless also do under-the-table deals with on the regular). However nobody likes Ultimate Marvel

[monabee-draws]

Caitlyn's slow but inevitable decline into facism was painful to watch but it's Vi's tacit support of that that REALLY hurts me.

Cait was raised at the top of the hierarchy and it only took her being the one 'in danger' to flip from sympathetic to the undercity to desperately angry and wanting to return to the status quo where she and piltover are in power/control/oppress the weak 'for their own good.' I expected this to happen from the moment her rhetoric began to shift (us vs them, calling Zaunites animals, general dehumanisation.)

Vi knows that the issue is structural and the structure that's used to exercise violence against the oppressed is the enforcers, yet she still joined them anyway. It's excellent writing but the implications that has for her as a character who has been shown to have strong convictions and morals is so heartbreaking. It feels like her years in prison have eroded at the heroic spark in her to the point where she'll justify anything to return to the past. I keep asking myself how Vi could justify using The Grey as a weapon against the undercity, and her parotting what is probably Caitlyn's justification - that they used it to clear the streets and keep as many safe as possible - just rings so hollow. She felt like a lost soul just vaguely drifting through life in Act 1, and of course she did. She has no one left BUT Caitlyn. She has no place in the Undercity because it grew away from her. Her base of motivation as a kid was to fight for and protect the Lanes and now that the Lanes are gone who even is Violet anymore? If only she could rewind time and restore the uncomfortable uneven past.

Vi and Cait are actually the same person, the only difference is that Caitlyn has the power to enact her vision and Vi doesn't. I'm so sore.

[ao3cassandraic]

As far as they can

At the end of the Job minisode, Crowley inaugurates Their Side by proclaiming Aziraphale "an angel who goes along with Heaven... as far as he can," parallel to his own stated relationship with Hell.

Only it... doesn't actually work that way. Their exactlies are different exactlies.

Crowley defies and lies to Hell as often as he thinks he can get away with it. He never disabuses Downstairs of their misconceptions about his contributions to human atrocities. He cheerfully lies in his reports Downstairs, something Aziraphale briefly turns on his Baritone of Sarcastic Disapproval about in s1. Crowley even turns evil homeopathic in the latter part of the 20th century, likely in hopes that it will look good to head office while accomplishing essentially nothing. (This, of course, is another way he Crowleys himself, both with the London phone system and the M25.) After Eden, Crowley's default given an assignment from Hell is to see how he can subvert it.

Aziraphale, on the other hand, defies Her and Heaven as little as he possibly can. Sometimes, as with his sword giveaway, his compassion gets the better of his anxiety. Sometimes, as with Job's children in the destruction of the villa, he can try to stay within the letter of the law by leaving the defiance to Crowley.

His default, however, is "'m 'nangel. I can't dis- diso -- not do what 'm told." This comes out most often as respect for the Great/Divine Plan, which to him is sacrosanct. He sounds quite sincere in s1 when he says "Even if I wanted to help I couldn’t. I can’t interfere with the Divine Plan."

Aziraphale quite frequently Good Angels along by parroting Heaven's party line, whether it's "it'll all be rather lovely" or "I am good, you (I'm afraid) are evil" or droning on about evil containing the seeds of its own destruction, or condemning Elspeth's graverobbing as "wicked" (a stance he offers absolutely no reasoned support for, no logic, no "but She said," not a word -- that's very Heaven; most of Heaven's angels have the approximate brainpower of paramecia). Maestro Michael Sheen even has a particular voice cadence -- I think of it as Sententious Voice -- he uses when Aziraphale is thoughtlessly party-lining.

When the angel's conscience wars with his sense of Heaven's orthodoxy but (and this is an important but) he can't feasibly resist whatever's wrong, he offers strengthless party-line justifications he clearly doesn't agree with (as with the "rain bow" in Mesopotamia) or resorts to a Nuremberg defense: "I'm not consulted on policy decisions, Crowley!" Once or twice, he's even vocally aware of Heavenly hypocrisy: "Unless… [guns]'re in the right hands, where they give weight to a moral argument… I think." This isn't Sententious Voice. It's I-can't-disobey-and-I-hate-that voice.

But at base, the angel prefers obedience (not least because it's vastly safer), and he'd rather have someone else do his moral reasoning for him. Honestly? Pretty relatable. I know lots of people like this -- hell's bells, I've been this person, though I grew out of it somewhat -- and I daresay you do too. Moral reasoning is hard and often lonely (since it can be read as self-righteousness or even hypocrisy) and acting as it dictates can hurt. Nobody would need ethics codes if The Right Thing was also invariably The Convenient Thing.

Many GO fans find these Aziraphalean traits frustrating! Especially his repeated returns to parroting Heaven orthodoxy! Sometimes I do too! (Not least because I'm rather protective of my own integrity, and it's cost me quite a few times. I'm well-known in professional circles for picking up a rhetorical spear and tilting at the nearest iniquitous windmill. I often lose, but I sure do keep tilting. Every once in a blue moon I actually win one.)

The key, I think, to giving our angel a little grace on this (beyond honoring the gentle compassion that is pretty basic to his character) is noticing how often he can be induced to abandon an unconsidered Heavenish default stance. As irritating as his default is, and as consistently as he returns to it, it's not really that hard to talk him out of it. Crowley, of course, is tremendously good at knocking Aziraphale away from his default -- he's had to be. But Aziraphale even manages to talk himself away from his default once, in the form of the Ineffable Plan hairsplitting at the airbase!

I think the character-relevant point of the Resurrectionist minisode is making this breaking-the-Heavenish-default dynamic as clear as the contents of the pickled-herring barrel aren't. "That's lunatic!" Crowley exclaims, when Aziraphale Sententious Voicedly parrots Heaven's garbage about poverty providing extra opportunities for goodness. Aziraphale isn't quite ready to let go yet, replying "It's ineffable."

But Dalrymple (who, I think, parallels Heaven, perhaps even the Metatron -- there could be something decent there, but it's buried too deep under scorn and clueless privilege for any graverobber-of-souls to dig it out) manages to break Aziraphale's orthodoxy by explaining the child's tumor.

Once released from his orthodoxy, Aziraphale can't be trusted to handle moral reasoning well; his moral-reasoning ability is not-uncommonly (though not always) portrayed as vitiated. When he gives Elspeth the go-ahead to dig up more bodies, his excuses are just as vacuous as they were when he was convinced of her wickedness. He knows that he's crossed Heaven's line, too, and just as at Eden it's worrying him. That's why he has to talk to Crowley to nerve himself up to help Wee Morag... only he spends too much time talking, and it's too late.

But Crowley can then talk him into bankrolling Elspeth toward a better life. Aziraphale doesn't even put up any fight, both because he's compassionate and because Crowley is temporarily taking the place of Heaven (he's even Heaven-sized and staring down at them!) as the angel's moral compass.

S1 has an even worse example of Aziraphale's moral wavering, actually. Crowley yells "Shoot him, Aziraphale!" and Aziraphale sure does try to murder Adam. Again, he's adopting his morals from the nearest (and loudest) convenient source. Madame Tracy, thankfully, has enough of a moral backbone to save our angel from himself and Crowley.

(With my ersatz-ethicist hat on: this is a fight between utilitarianism and deontology. Crowley is the utilitarian, which is actually a bit of a departure for him, but he's admittedly desperate. Madame Tracy is the deontologist: One Doesn't Kill Children. Aziraphale is caught in the middle.)

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason we start s3 with Aziraphale and Crowley separated is so that Aziraphale finally has to do his own moral reasoning, without Crowley's nudges. I don't think it'll be easy for him. It will absolutely be lonely. And it may well hurt.

But I will watch for it, because it's how he will become his own angel, independent of Heaven and even of Crowley. And he must do that.

[empyreansentinel]

Going into the quote page and remembering Angel tells you she's an artificial intelligence for most of the story. Probably because Jack told her to. And thinking Damn she has been getting dehumanized for years even when people do listen to her because they just assume they're talking to a machine, in a universe that already devalues robots despite their sentience. Aigh. Augh.a ugh

ITS SO...esp with the way roland talks about her when theyre planning out how to get to the bunker, its so depersonalizing. and i understand why he would be that way because he’s spent the last five years thinking shes a machine, and now a machine with malicious intent, but :(

literally every single named ai in the series shows human levels of sentience and emotional capability but they are clearly seen as having less autonomy. claptrap ofc is the most obvious answer but it also extends to felicity and balex ect. but by being forced to take the role of an ai angel also experiences that same treatment even from people she has known since she was a child. and its just. AUGH. a million deaths upon me.

[shallowseeker]

Look, hope and optimism are never a bad thing, okay? Hope is energy. It carries you.

And sometimes hope can be transformative, even if it transforms into anger, it's still lighting a fire under your tail.

[anghraine]

i just saw someone say that faramir is infuriating because he's self-aggrandizing in claiming that he won't act in any way that doesn't befit his status, and on one hand - i understand the root of it? he does have a courteous, almost formal style of talking. he does openly claim that he would not take this mysterious power (before he knew about the ring) if it was on the highway. he agrees to denethor's characterization that he wants to appear noble like a king of old.

but on the other hand i'm straining at the bit to defend my baby because - infuriating?? when he lives up to the words he is saying?? when the text shows over and over that he's loved by his people, that he genuinely tries to live by those standards (and seems to succeed) - him not killing even animals unnecessarily, him riding back for his men. even his proclaimed dream to see gondor's tree bloom and peace restored, is supported by him seemingly making that transition from steward to king as smooth as possible?

maybe it's because i instantly liked him so much. it just caught me so off guard because this particular criticism never ever crossed my mind. so funny how people will interpret the same thing differently. to some internet user out there, his words are self-aggrandizing. to me, his words are straightfoward and supported by actions - dreamboat central.

Hi, anon! I'm pretty much with you on this one. I've seen the occasional post like that, and I can understand finding his style grating (though I personally love it) or disliking the general baggage associated with Tolkien's handling of Númenóreanness (there's a considerable degree of classism and racism built in to the presentation of Elves and peredhil/Númenóreans in LOTR in particular, while later texts like "The Mariner's Wife" are relatively more nuanced).

But the idea that Faramir is essentially just performing the appearance of high virtue as a sort of imitation of Númenórean cultural values without actually possessing those values or the virtues of the best of them just seems a profound misinterpretation to me. He has flaws, but he's not a hypocrite and he does not fail to live up to his presentation of himself at any point.

He's exactly what he appears to be, a stern and intelligent young man out of step with the current trends of his culture, who still cares deeply about his people and their allies. He's potentially highly dangerous in the way of Denethor and Aragorn, and like them, his personality is hard and unbending when it comes down to it, but he's also gentler than either—the combination of his willingness to act on the threat he represents if necessary and ethically justifiable, with a deep compassion and sympathy for others (even animals), is distinct and really interesting.

I think there's a very important distinction between Faramir performing virtue and gentleness and putting on the persona of a great Númenórean lord in times of peace, and Faramir presenting himself as he truly is and then suiting actions to words, despite the fundamental antipathy between his temperamental inclinations and the circumstances he's been placed in.

[theidealistphilosophy]

That is why I go into solitude— so as not to drink out of everybody’s cistern. When I am among the many I live as the many do, and I do not think as I really think; after a time it always seems as though they want to banish me from myself and rob me of my soul— and I grow angry with everybody and fear everybody.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality.

[roxannepolice]

Bottom line is, the Doctor not drawing the line beyond which they just won't abide by the Master would be just as boring as the Master getting neutered out of their villain role.

What also would be boring, and in fact already was, is the Doctor just bloody knowing where that line is instead of needing it constantly pointed out by companions or, even more interestingly, the Master themself.

[davidaugust]

"The re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States provided Meta [owner of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and such] with a glorious opportunity to pivot from futile co-operation with the EU to confrontation and coercion. If Meta could get the US government onside in its battles with the EU and other jurisdictions, then it would maximise its chances of success."

"In his Facebook announcement this week of changes to various policies, Zuckerberg candidly said that he wanted to 'work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world. They’re going after American companies and pushing to censor more. The US has the strongest constitutional protections for free expression in the world…The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government.'"

"For a corporation in the predicament of Meta this makes perfect commercial sense, even if it does violence to previously expressed sentiments. This is not an example of a company suddenly acting irrationally, but of a company rationally responding to one political development so as to facilitate defeating a regulatory challenge."

"And as the business models of most social media platforms require engagement above all — for without engagement you cannot have data mining and monetising and advertising — it really does not matter that the engagement is generated and amplified by misinformation and disinformation."

"The recent appointments at board level at Meta look like it is preparing for battle, and one in which its current commercial model requires it to defeat the aims of foreign governments. The new appointments make a lot of strategic sense."

"Nonetheless there is a fight ahead: over who shall regulate the social media platforms that in turn are influential in shaping (and contaminating) public discourse."

(Unfortunately behind a paywall: https://www.ft.com/content/917c9535-1cdb-4f6a-9a15-1a0c83663bfd )

[randomfoggytiger]

Dear Tiger, I have always recommended your blog to many people who are interested in the X-Files. My recommendation goes something like this: “Brilliant analysis, well-founded opinions, without unnecessary judgments about the actors' private lives. But beware! The blog is very fond of David and can't be impartial. It's not hostile, but, even unconsciously, it minimizes Scully's importance and Gillian's talent, to the detriment of Mulder and Duchovny. Imagine the blog as if it were a proud mother talking about a beloved child, extolling (and greatly exaggerating) their qualities, and ignoring their flaws. In conclusion, if you allow for this fierce protection of David, it's one of the best - if not the best - blog about the X-Files.” When I read his analysis of the questions posed by Anon, I couldn't help but smile and remember this recommendation of mine. Duchovny is lucky to have such loyal and positive fans, who get to see the best version of him, always. An excellent 2025 to you Tiger, I'll always keep coming back and recommending your blog.🥰🥰 PS: On this particular topic, I think about 85% of your analysis is correct - but there's about 15% that I disagree with, I think it's more of a speculation/interpretation favorable to Duchovny, than exactly the reality.

I was reading this feeling all fuzzy before I got to the "impossible to be impartial" bit. XDDDD

Ah, well. Do I come across as partial? o.o Hm, I can tone down my language in future if needed-- don't mean to come across as if I hero worship (or mentally coddle) DD. His personal life isn't intertwined with mine, for one; and he's also a man who behaved selfishly, made terrible mistakes, and didn't learn gratitude until AA. He's probably still selfish because all humans are; but he's also made personal changes, has grown a lot, and continues to prove-- via his work and actions and interests and mindset-- that he isn't regressing. I give him the charitability I hand to any other person I deem 'good' and 'doing their best'. Ultimately, I just get super happy for others who are trying and are succeeding or are on the path to their own version of success. :DDDDDD

I will say, you do raise a point I've been mulling over: I don't talk about Gillian as much as I do David solely because I haven't found a blog that gives me all her work/projects/interviews/etc. up front. Though I will stipulate that I don't see the sense in taking his side over hers-- there aren't sides in their relationship to me. And I'm fond of her, too! :))))))) She did incredible work on The X-Files, and incredible work afterwards. And she powered through the 90s as a divorced, single mom with mental health struggles, which is worthy of an award. Again, I simply have less easy access to her work. I do heavily disagree that I minimize GA's importance and talent, unconsciously or not: she's part of a team; and she carried the show on her back in David's absence. That more than wins her a medal of honor. Moreover, Scully is irrefutably a woman so forward-moving and inspiring in her own right that the Scully Effect was created in her honor. (She also inspired me to take better care of my nails. Her manicures are spectacular.) You can't have the show without her.

Now that I've got my comments out of the way, thank you so, so much for dropping in to let me know your thoughts! Your words were (and are) so kind; and the knowledge that you spread my work to others, and that they might enjoy it, too, is... it's wonderful. And if you have to buffer my blog ahead of time however you need, go ahead. As long as others know what they're getting into, I suppose. XDDDD It really does mean the world. We all have days where we wonder if we're just shouting into a void; and some days the void is wider and darker than others. But knowing that you and others think my meta is worthwhile... it puts a lot into perspective. And being described how you've described me is.. thank you. So, you know what? I'll wear "loyal and positive fan" with pride, even if you punch on "Impartial"-- it's how you honestly see me; and I'm not at all offended about that. Now that I've thought about it, I'm downright amused.

Lastly, disagreement is always welcome! If you want to share, I'd be curious to know what the particulars are-- it keeps me on my toes by forcing me to double check my own opinions. >:DDDDD

I'll definitely be rereading this ask in future when the void gets bothersome. Thank you, thank you!

[artbyblastweave]

Monstress is a comic I like for many many reasons, but one of those reasons is in the fourth or fifth volume, when a couple of protagonist-adjacent characters are wandering through a village, and the ignorant villagers try to do the whole anti-mutant-lynch-mob-burn-the-witch routine, and the protagonists are like, guys, we have magic powers and extensive combat experience, if you attack us, we're gonna kill the living shit out of all of you, and then the ignorant villagers attack them anyway. And they go, alright, we've done due diligence on this one, and then they kill the living shit out of all the ignorant villagers. Cannot count the number of times I've encountered beats like that over the years where I was like, Jesus, just kill these ignorant villagers