#protagonist centered morality

[panlight]

you know, last night out of boredom I was scrolling around tv tropes site and fell into a rabbit hole, and thru that I found entries for the Twilight Saga on the "Unintentionally Unsympathetic" and "Protagonist-Centered Morality" tropes that I found intriguing. Specifically about the Cullens:

In Unintentionally Unsympathetic

They are held up as the epitome of generosity and goodness. Even so, they generally are cold and anti-social to anyone who isn't another vampire or Bella, they are hostile towards the werewolves even though some (for example, Alice) never even met the werewolves before, and they are perfectly fine with letting vampires that do drink human blood hang around the area.

There's a scene in Breaking Dawn where the Cullens invite a bunch of vampires into town and give them keys to their cars so that they can feed on humans from out of town, because apparently their friends murdering people is okay so long as they don't know the people being murdered.

In Protagonist-Centered Morality

And by Breaking Dawn, the Cullens have agreed that they need backup if the Volturi are coming to get their murder on, so they call in every favor they have with the other vampires. Now, the Cullens have sworn to feed only on the blood of animals, these vampires have not, and yet the Cullens are happy to lend them their car to go hunting for humans (and vampires in the setting inevitably kill any human they feed on, unless they're turned) — just as long as Bella doesn't get hurt. Oh, and that they hunt outside Forks so people Bella knows won't die.

Yeaaa,, come to think of it, what was up with that?

My memory of the book is foggy but I did recall some narration where Bella sees the garage empty of some cars and notes that "the vampires had gone off to hunt" (even though??? they can run faster than any car so why bother? ??) and I can't remember if the movie addresses or acknowledges it but.. I DO remember the part where Aro considers having the La Push packs as "guard dogs" and Edward talks about how the idea won't work because the werewolves, being committed to protecting human life can coexist better with them/The Cullens more than the Volturi and now that I read those entries I'm just sitting here like But you're no different letting all those human-eating vampires chill at your place and causing a werewolf explosion?? And being soooo hospitable as to lend your cars for them lol!! At worse you're enabling it!! (facepalm)

Yeah this has always bothered me.

I think in the book it's specifically Edward who is lending out his keys to the visiting vampires. And, genuinely, why would these hundreds of years old nomadic vampires who don't live among humans like the Cullens do even know how to drive??

And also, they aren't even there THAT long? It's like, what? 2 weeks, max? And they don't have to feed that often. Could they really just . . . not hunt during their stay, or try the vegetarian thing to humor their supposed friends? If your vegan friend invited you to their house and you accepted their invitation, you wouldn't expect to be served bacon cheeseburgers for dinner. Or have Carlisle buy more donated human blood as he's been doing for most of the book and offer it to his guests as a 'nice compromise?'

Again, it's like SM didn't actual want to deal with any of the vampire stuff and just kind of swept it under the rug with Bella being "uncomfortable" with their hunting habits. Either a) deal with it! Show us Carlisle trying to persuade people, Emmett betting Garrett, Benjamin, Peter and Charlotte that they couldn't do it, an angry exchange when someone comes back with freshly bright red eyes, something!! or b) explain it away with an alternative like donated human blood, everyone agreeing to try the vegetarian thing, not being there long enough that hunting is necessary, etc.

If you're going to make it not matter you might as well go all the way and actually remove the moral quandary entirely. Instead we're in this sort of unsatisfying middle option when get one paragraph acknowledging that's happening but neither the 'good' vampires nor the shifters (!!) do anything about it because everything is justified in the protection of Renesmee and the furtherance of Bella's happily ever after.

Even though earlier in the! same! book! Sam says: "And inflict the menace on others? When blood drinkers cross our land, we destroy them, no matter where they plan to hunt. We protect everyone we can."

(I mean I GUESS they aren't technically crossing Quileute land but still like . . . c'mon.)

It could have been a cool source of conflict in a section of the book that really kind of needed some! Instead of Bella's little subplot with Jenks not going anywhere and fight training for a fight that never happened, we could have had something more than just, "well I don't like that they're killing people but we need them to witness so, meh."

[ladyluscinia]

OFMD fandom has me thinking about Protagonist Centered Morality, like, in general.

I feel like we only call it that when we think it's been handled wrong and are criticizing it, even though - let's be honest - we have all bought into some degree of protagonist centered morality in our favorite show. Like. It's the beating heart behind the very idea of a Mook - the faceless darkside minion that your heroes can destroy without any moral consequence for that action because who gives a shit? It's basically inescapable in every cop-show (or reskinned cop show like spn), chosen one story, action movie, revenge quest, underdog tale... we fucking love it when the universe agrees "yeah they earned that" and will generally just roll our eyes at people going "ok but you know your fictional murderers are doing bad things, right?"

Until we don't.

And, like, as an offshoot of this... 99% of the time, when you're criticizing a show for its protagonist centered morality, the most straightforward way to get your point across is complaining about whatever happened. "X did Y and then we're just supposed to forget about it?" Or "X is being such a hypocrite about Z!" And then someone else (real or hypothetical) pushes back with some point about how the story / other characters / etc. don't treat this as a problem and that kicks off the framing criticisms. But is it really about what they did?

People will object to the protagonist centered framing of actions they don't consider that serious, and be satisfied or unconcerned with the framing of actions they find borderline unforgivable. Protagonist centered morality can casually handwave (or seriously penalize) the whole spectrum of morally questionable actions from being a shit in high school to committing massive war crimes. Sometimes the primary complaint is that the protagonist already took a stance against this action, so now being fine with doing it themselves is hypocritical and out of character, and the problem with protagonist centered morality seems to be more that it's letting the OOC part slide.

The concept engages with genuine criticism of a characterization or character's actions as a shorthand, but the part it's actually complaining about is closer to feeling the narrative failed somewhere on a meta level to calibrate how much the audience should care about this event (and what level of in-universe caring would then satisfy).

It's not (at least usually) a fancy way of putting forward character crit of the good guys - most people who want to do that are just going to do so directly. If anything it has more in common with being upset at a story for breaking your Suspension of Disbelief (usually in the arena of character relationships).

[rpmemesbyarat]

This is aimed at fanfic, but I think it also applies to RP when writing a canon character. For instance, are you lionizing or woobifying the character you write? Do you villify other characters unfairly because of how they engaged or relate to your fave? Do you engage in protagonist-centered morality, where your character's actions are always in the right, where anyone who inconviences them or hurts their feelings or calls them on their flaws must be in the wrong, etc? Because I saw that a LOT in the RPC. Hell, I'd even say it applies to writing original fiction and/or RPing original fiction. You CAN woobify your own characters, and you absolutely can unfairly villify them as well, and protagonist-centered morality is a huge issue in published works I've read. For instance, I've read plenty of series where the protagonist is treated with kid gloves or given excuses for actions that other characters are framed as terrible people for committing. And I can't count the number of novels I've read where other girls are "sluts" for having sex or just...being attractive. . .but our heroine totally isn't when she has sex and/or is desired by all the guys around her! I could go on. Anyway, it's not too long and I think it's worh a watch!

[imhatsunemikurealz]

ScarVio's Hypocrisy

One of the main themes of the main story was the damage that bullying does. And then in the DLC, you are the bully. And the game thinks this is okay.

[joemerl]

A general problem with Le Morte D'Arthur is that whoever's the current protagonist is going to be a massive Gary Stu. But it really becomes an issue with Tristram, because his ability to do shitty things is matched only by the narrative's attempts to convince you that disliking him for that is wrong, actually. He can't scratch his ass without us being reminded that he is a Noble Knight™, defined here as "good at hurting people" rather than showing actual nobility.

I'm at the Isle of Servage bit, and it's a good setup: he's trapped in enemy territory, along with two knights whom he's ticked off in the past. They have to work together, so as the protagonist, Tristram is going to learn to deal with the negative consequences of his past actions, right? No, stupid! He's the protagonist, which means that everyone else has to learn to ignore his past actions so that they don't have negative consequences. I mean, look at this:

He can literally fuck your wife and beat you up afterwards, and you will still fall on your knees, begging for the chance to suck his d!ck. I hate him so much.

[amarriageoftrueminds]

To me, this reads as if Tony’s drive is not guilt... it’s fear. The Existential Horror of discovering that bad things can happen to even a sheltered billionaire genius Great Man such as himself. 

His bruised ego over his tarnished legacy and his fondness for dramatics has him wanting to whitewash his past and cocoon his future with a single grand gesture. But he wants the easy, comforting, short cut. So he will, eg. kill everyone in Novi Grad, so long as it will quickly save his planet. 

(His controlling tendencies only extend beyond America to encompass the whole planet because armouring himself alone won’t keep him safe. And that panic has him making the same authoritarian choices that Hydra believes in; PTSD radicalises him.) 

Tony’s fear makes him paranoid that the Avengers will fail (even though it’s the World Security Council and his own Ultron that fail). 

Which... is what causes him to interfere with a winning formula, and unwittingly bring about the very failure he so feared. 

His drive is not making amends but behaving differently (ish), because the way he behaved before backfired and caused him pain, and he’s just desperately trying to avoid experiencing more. 

Including the pain of being confronted by a dead kid’s parent. He didn’t care about dead kids in Sokovia until a grieving American parent made him personally feel bad about it. He wants someone else to be the one who experiences that pain; he wants someone else to be to blame if things go wrong. 

Because, to a narcissist, there is no greater agony than publicly fucking up.

Tony has a very legitimate argument in the movie that’s a very adult point of view, about culpability, about the Avengers’ responsibility to the world, and the world’s right to have some sort of control over the Avengers. - Joe Russo

[generic-sonic-fan]

I think we should make Sonic a bit of a brash personality again. Make him vibe hard with certain people but absolutely clash with others instead of knowing perfectly what to say to absolutely everybody.

Let this dude have the arrogance of a protagonist who knows he's a protagonist and let him suffer from some protagonist-centered morality as a result. I mean bro was so convinced he was doing the right thing in Frontiers that he accidentally unleashed an ancient evil and then had to play damage control. Is that anything.

[lord-squiggletits]

The thing about the fandom headcanon that calls Pharma Ratchet's crazy ex and treats him like some sort of stalker or intrusion on Ratchet's love life (usually with Drift) is that

On one level, it's already annoying when a perfectly fine/interesting character is reduced to nothing but "bitter ex getting in the way of The Actual OTP" because it simplifies the character to only exist as a satellite to someone's ship (the bitter loser who can't let go/doesn't deserve person A/etc) instead of having their own life going on.

But when it comes to Pharma it's particularly annoying because it reduces Pharma to "the crazy stalker/bitter ex", framing Pharma as if he's the villain ruining Ratchet's life with his inability to just let go,

When in actual canon it was Ratchet who was best friends with Pharma their whole life (they're even shown together in the Functionist Universe). Ratchet who ditched Pharma with barely a word of goodbye (before Delphi, and ironically the same conversation where Pharma asked Ratchet if he should accept the station at Delphi). And it was Ratchet who asked Drift if he was scared of going into DJD territory as an ex-Decepticon, but treated Pharma like scum for killing patients under threat of being murdered by the DJD. And Ratchet who stole Pharma's hands. And Ratchet who tried to manipulate Pharma by using his deepest insecurities against him on Luna-1.

It's not like Pharma is some rando who Ratchet barely knew. They were BEST FRIENDS whose friendship was severed on a really messy note. Pharma has every right to be invested in a relationship/friendship that almost literally lasted he and Ratchet's entire life. It sucks when people implicitly treat Pharma as if he's obsessed and should just move on when the reality is that it was Ratchet who first terminated their relationship with no explanation or even a goodbye (pre Delphi) and then with leaving Pharma to die and then stealing his hands (post-Delphi). So is Pharma really "obsessed" or is he just understandably upset about being betrayed by the person who should've known and cared about him the most?

So like, it's really annoying when Ratchet has so many flaws in canon and questionable ways he treated Pharma, but the fandom just calls Pharma a crazy stalker ex as if Pharma is the freak who's overreacting and mentally insane while Ratchet is just some guy who was only minding his own business. To me it's not even a matter of shipping, it's just the fact that Ratchet DID handle his relationship with Pharma super fucking poorly. And I really wish more people in the fandom acknowledged that instead of framing Pharma as the evil/crazy/overly attached one for being upset about being ditched. Pharma has reasons to be pissed off and driven to get revenge on Ratchet, and even if his romantic feelings towards Ratchet might play somewhat of a role, Pharma is way more than just some stalker ex who's evil because he's crazy and wants Ratchet to be his boyfriend.

I mean Pharma literally says on the page that the reasons he's angry at Ratchet are for ruining his plans at Delphi and for stealing his hands. Even though Pharma-as-Adaptus orders Drift shot later in LL, it's not explicitly framed as some romantic jealousy and could also just as easily be construed as Pharma getting revenge for Drift cutting his hands off. I don't think Pharma ever even talks about or mentions Drift in the entire story. It's very clear that Pharma's beef/obsession with Ratchet is entirely between him and Ratchet and Drift is only a footnote in all of the reasons Pharma is pissed off.

[ladyluscinia]

Someone liked one of my posts from back when everyone was debating the whole "Edward says he has no friends so Izzy can't be close to him" thing, and it reminded me of an argument I've probably made before, but usually as part of a larger, Izzy-focused tangent and not like. On its own merits. So, just for the record...

Generally, if someone is defending Edward's 1x06 bathtub claim of friendlessness as literally true for whatever reason, then Calico Jack is discounted as a "real" friend of Edward's by referencing Jack's quote from 1x08:

"What kinda pirate has a friend?!? We're all just in various stages of fucking each other over!"

The reasoning goes that Edward shares this belief / mindset, and doesn't truly trust Jack (or any other pirate) not to fuck him over. He has his guard up, always, and he's aware that he doesn't trust any of his lifetime of acquaintances with meaningful vulnerability. That's why he can sob to Stede in a bathtub that he has no friends and mean it literally. He's extending real trust for the first time ever, to Stede, and it's more proof they invented acceptance etc. etc.

Now, I have better and more robust reasons that I interpret the bathtub scene differently, but setting those aside... I think there's an argument in the text of 1x08 that Edward doesn't buy into Jack's line, even just looking at his relationship with Jack. The semantics, maybe - he noticeably doesn't use the word friend, preferring "mate" - but not the philosophy behind it.

Because Edward very much does seem to believe Jack (and Izzy) would not fuck him over.

Edward falls for Jack's bullshit hook, line, and sinker because he doesn't suspect Jack of any fuckery. His guard isn't up at all! Jack even calls him out on it! Edward is hurt, betrayed, and angry because he trusted Jack, as a friend, and then Jack used that trust to help Izzy. He's hurt and pissed that Izzy would sell Stede out, despite their last interaction literally being Izzy screaming that he hates Stede and swearing to return with a vengeance. Edward has absolutely no reason to expect "better" from either of these men - especially Jack given how cavalier he is about the whole thing - unless he thinks they have a bond of friendship that would preclude a plot against his new boyfriend. It's foundational to his emotional state!

[camelcasebestcase]

They changed Ripley's backstory in a way that makes her into one of those 'villains who have a great point but inexplicably kick puppies about it'. Sure, she's a foil and makes different choices from Percy after having a similar experience, setting her on a different path- but those different choices are not shown apart from the ones she made long after she already dived off into the deep end of villainy. I'm left with the impression that the difference is some inherent 'goodness' which is bleh. I like Percy having 'Noblesse Oblige' as a character flaw, but it could be explored a bit more as a flaw, you know?

[selkiesstories]

I was going through your grrm critical tag and I have to say you really hit on a lot of the points I always noticed with his writing but could not articulate and I think you're way better at being critical of him, than like 90 percent of the fandom that just glosses over his shoddy world building and weirdness lmao. I think that GRRM has a big problem with tone deafness, not being consistent about the supposed themes he's exploring, distorting history yet claiming realism, and just over all not understanding the implications of some of his more baffling writing choices.

Also, I think that fandom tends to project the plots, characterizations, and themes they want this work to be about, and not what is actually presented in the text. A lot of this is of course his fault for not finishing the books, because he uses a lot of POV traps, misdirection, vague retellings of events, ambiguity, which is all fine and well.....if the author actually delivers a resolution to the seeds that he plants thus giving readers some semblance of answers to these questions. I doubt Martin ever will at this point.

That being said, I think fandom also thinks he's some moral philosophy teacher that is imparting 'lessons' with a lot of his writing choices especially when it comes to the sexualization of pre-teens and teens in his work and I just.....don't think that's the case. I think he's a bit of Freak and uses 'well, this is set in medieval times' to place barely teen girls in unambiguously romantic/sexual relationships with older men. I also think the whole 'well, he's really doing a massive critique of incest' in his work and....I just don't see that as the case lol. I remember reading Fire and Blood and him describing how 14/15 year old Alyssa marries her brother Baelon and it's a great marriage, and relationship, and she was so hot for him her cries of passion could be heard through the castle on their wedding night lmao. I see fandom propagate that GRRM thinks incest is this disgusting terrible thing and is always framed badly and it's....not? lol. I'm not endorsing these narrative choices btw, I just think a lot of people don't want to admit that they like a series that would be considered deeply problematic in 2023 and instead try to twist themselves into a pretzel to make GRRM into the most Woke Author to have ever Woked.

Also, don't even get me started on this man choosing to have half his main characters be either literal children and pre-teens and then just treating them as if they are 25-years-old both in terms of mental and physical development (because he obviously has no idea how teens develop). Like, if you have no concept of a the differences between a 12 year old girl a 15 year old girl and a 18 year old you.....maybe don't have the characters start off so baffling young because it makes you look very Weird considering the writing choices in the series.

Aww thank you so much! I think I owe a lot to my realization that I just wasn’t enjoying the books and was under no obligation to finish them. I have no need to twist myself into intellectual pretzels to justify my preferred ending or why actually Martin loves my favorite character or why my ship is endgame. He’s never finishing the series anyway Obviously he’s the author and can say whatever he wants, but he also says that Daemon Targaryen is the most complex character he’s ever written.

Anyway the moral of the story I guess is to not overly identify with whatever it is you like to the point where you think that it has to be above moral reproach because otherwise it reflects badly on you as a person. That, and not insisting on historical accuracy in a story featuring dragons.

[paragonrobits]

I genuinely don't know if this is a take that entirely makes sense in the context of Avatar but one thought I have periodically spinning in the back of my brain is that as the Avatar is the spirit of the world itself and that spirits don't seem to really care that much about what humans do save the Avatar (and spirits like Wan Shi Tong, who dislike humans using their domain for what that spirit considers malicious purposes), and yet there is apparently an in-universe belief in divine favor, I think that the only entity around that can be said to give that favor at all is the Avatar, and that if you consider morality as something baked into the fabric of the universe (and in ATLA there IS clearly a thing about balance and harmony being the greatest good), then there may well be a possibility that the Avatar is the first and only arbiter of what that morality is

that something is good and just because the Avatar declares it so, that what they decide IS just; the Avatar being all the world, and thus to argue with the Avatar on matters of morality is to miss the point; what the Avatar decrees IS moral.

This in turn DOES put Aang in an interestingly complicated position, in that he very clearly does not like the idea of having his nature as the Avatar be a gotcha to all moral quandaries. To him, that his decisions equate to all morality is missing the point; he feels that just because he CAN do things and have the universe itself comply with that doesn't meant he believes he ought to enforce the notion that because its him doing, it is automatically right and anyone going against him or gainsaying him is wrong.

It may be true. He chooses to make the best decisions he knows he can, based on the principles he holds dear.

Without principles, with only the question of 'Does this get me what I want?' to permit any ruthless action, what would he be?

He thinks of Sozin, of Azulon and Ozai, and there is his answer.

[lady-of-the-spirit]

Going feral over the fact that Zeus's plan for taking care of a child he knew he couldn't properly care for was 100% better for everyone involved than how Hades took care of Thanatos, and yet Zeus is apparently the bad guy for this.

[smhalltheurlsaretaken]

rewatching the savoy episode, huhhhhh.... the duke isn't the bad guy? he's rude and brash and arrogant and brutal, but from an objective standpoint he wasn't the villain of the situation. we all hate him because the savoy massacre was awful and we don't like to see aramis be sad, but france started it all when, from his pov, they tried to have him assassinated out of political convenience. it's not like he set out to kill people for fun.

[maneaterwithtail]

Introducing Moral Complexity (contrary or wretched events) but not Equal Moral analysis and judgement is a rhetorical trick that should be hated

This video explains why

Hey, its cool you want to enhance and deepen either an actual IP OR an write your own part of a genre borrowing the simplistic trappings only to then reveal your astounding take that the Church/Angels are Evil

Go ahead.

Just FUCKING DO IT!!!  Don't stop midway at discreditting the authority against you, that's just self serving sophsistry.  Keep going to show what judgement you use and what values you do uphold

But lets be real.  You wanna fuck and throw lightning in the most convenient easy way at targets to validate your feelings with power over others with might to harm and subjugate them or hold character and plot resolution hostage, if not torment an effigy of an opponent.  Its getting really REALLY easy to spot by now when freaking BARBIE is getting in on that fucking action

So keep going and hold up a principle as to gather and boil some outrage.  And more importantly have it be actually applicable to EVERYONE not just similarly wounded, which is more about gathering a calculated group of irritants to drive at and bound by outrage than sense and build to true lasting virtuous empowerment

Show me your new way.  The struggles of conceiving it, refining its code, discipline in adherence, and frailities, faults, and exceptions and contradictions with reality. Or don't waste my time with the pretense you care about morals and make it the indulgent fancy it is.  I won't scorn you too much.  But don't expect standing ovation or praise or moral approval for such a display.  Only excellence of craft will draw and deserves praise in such instance.  And no substance can be had no matter illusion of such borrowed from deeper more substantial practice or pursuits.

[jeankirsteind]

What you expect from Protagonist-Centered Morality like Ladybug? No matter the poor decisions that she made, there’s always unrealistic deus ex machina out of nowhere to saint stalker like her. 

Can we talk about the stupid magical charm that ladybug give to people after they dealumantize and how useless it is . So if u don't in season 4 Ladybug make a magical charm to stop people from reakumatization. But she made one mistake she unintentionally gave it to Gabriel in episode gabriel agreste and now that he found a way to over power it by creating a mekakuma and she is realize this after her family got reakumatize. She didn't do jack shit to upgrade the charm or anything she still give this charms to people knowing full well that it's not working anymore so yeah the magical charm is useless now and people get re akumatize left and right. Great job defending Paris Ladybug