#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."

[almacambiondaughterofsaleos]

Summary Of Stolas And How The Narrative Treats Everyone Who Hates/Calls Him Out Vs Those Who Like/Suck Up To Him

There is a reason why some would call him a Gary Stu/Marty Stu because he hits so much of the criteria for it that it's not even funny but dare say it and you have stans coming down on you saying that's false. The show runs on heavy protagonist heavy morality since Stolas took center stage.

[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.

[ariel-seagull-wings]

The terms is Protagonist Centered Morality @rei-ismyname

Check my Patreon out if you’d like to support the comic, even a little bit helps. Or just to check out the reward tiers, there’s some neat bonus stuff and I tried to make them fun: https://www.patreon.com/waitingforthet/

[danadiadea]

Who is a bully in the same way as Severus Snape? Calls a child an idiot, punishes excessively sometimes, shows student bias? Hagrid and Minerva.

Who is a bully in the same way as James Potter? Raises defenceless people up in the air, baring their body without their concent for strangers to see, just to have a laugh? The Death Eaters.

[madou-dilou]

Thoughts on the moral imbalance between humans and Xadia

*The Dragon Prince* presents itself as a story about breaking cycles of violence, about two civilizations learning to coexist, about individuals rising above history’s mistakes. "Breaking the cycle", "Narrative of love instead of narrative of strength". The most symbolic quote of the show being Janai's "I define history. History doesnt make me." On paper, it seems like a fair exploration of war, prejudice, and reconciliation. But beneath this veneer of balance lies a troubling asymmetry: while the worldbuilding suggests an even conflict, the *moral weight* of the story is disproportionately placed on humans.

And I wondered I felt that way, because as a matter of fact, the show does not hesitate to depict Xadian cruelty on multiple occasions.

So I think it has less to do with the message than the execution.

That it's actually completely unintended.

We see it from the very first episode, where humans are driven from their lands in an act of ethnic cleansing. We see it in Runaan's unrepentant racism, in Avizandum’s and Sol Regem's indiscriminate slaughter, in Keesha’s fiery wrath she unleashes in the name of justice on every human she comes accross, in Karim’s supremacist ideology, in Finnegrin's torture of Rayla, in Kim Dael's literal thirst for blood. Xadia is not a utopia.

And yet, these acts of violence, these crimes against humanity, are never truly confronted.

They are treated as regrettable but understandable, the result of individuals rather than a systemic pattern of oppression. Well, Karim's arc, is an attempt at portraying that systemic oppression for he actually has plenty of followers within the population of sunfire elves, but it sadly doesn't suffice for it's treated as violence feeding itself, and the human protagonists themselves convienently never face racism.

Human violence, on the other hand, is never just an individual failing—it is a reflection of humanity itself.

When Viren, Claudia and Callum turn to dark magic, it is not just their personal descent but a cautionary tale about human ambition and desperation. When Soren attempts to take down a dragon that just burned a town to the ground, he is framed as part of the problem, a cog in the ever-turning wheel of revenge. When the protagonists we're suposed to root for chop the childhood friend's leg off, no one among them gives a damn because she's a dark mage. Even Ezran, a child who has never harmed anyone, spends much of his time trying to *prove* that humans deserve a place in the world, as if their right to exist in peace is something that must be earned. When thousands of humans get killed at the end of season 3, they happen to have convienently turned into monsters by their leader Viren, so it's portrayed as the necessary victory of good over evil, with no reflection at all upon the weight of their ugly deaths in a show that prides itself on being anti-war!

Hundreds thousands of humans are killed by a human in an anti-War show and it's presented as a victory of good over evil. What lesson are we supposed to learn from this?

There is no clearer example of this imbalance than Callum’s relationship with magic. Dark magic uses organic matter to function but is portrayed as morally unforgivable no matter the circumstances, even when it doesn't kill or provoke pain to get fueled, for it's vaguely supposed to evoke all the bad versants of "exploitation", concepts like scientism, pollution or rape. Yet as far as anyone knows, dark magic is the *only* way for humans to wield the forces of the world. It is dangerous, yes, but so is every form of power in Xadia—it is no more inherently evil than a dragon's ability to burn someone alive or an elf's ability to suck someone's blood dry. And yet, when Callum is forced to use dark magic to save his friends, the act is treated as so vile, so soul-destroying, that he spirals into suicidal despair. His use of dark magic is not just a mistake—it is a *moral failure*, a stain on his very being. He crushed two already dead corpses of slugs but his soul is somehow stained almost beyond repair.

But when Callum somehow gains an Arcanum, the kind of magic elves and dragons are simply *born with*, it is framed as an evolution, something to be celebrated. Never mind that the Ocean Arcanum was just shown to be capable of torturing a girl to death. Never mind that moon magic was used in episode one to force a child to kill an even younger child. Never mind that humans have spent centuries barely surviving, with dark magic as their only tool in a world designed to exclude them. Callum uses on Claudia the Ventus Frigoris spell that was previously used in front of him to torture Rayla, and I only noticed that because a fan pointed it out : it's not addressed.

I would add that all though the show starts and presents itself as a nuanced exploration of war, oppression, and cycles of violence, its underlying framework is actually an ecological parable. Instead of examining human conflicts with complexity, the show depicts a world where humans represent destructive civilization, while magical beings—especially dragons and elves—embody a lost natural harmony.

The story frames humans as inherently greedy and short-sighted, their struggle for survival reduced to exploitation. Dark magic serves as a metaphor for environmental destruction—presented not as a tool that can be used responsibly, but as an inherently corrupting force. Meanwhile, magical creatures are positioned as righteous victims, their own wars and greed either ignored or excused.

Meanwhile, human suffering—starvation, war, or displacement—is dismissed as self-inflicted.

The show frames humans as an unnatural force that disrupts the balance of the world. They are the only sapient beings who cannot wield primal magic, and their only means of survival is through dark magic—metaphorized as industrial exploitation. This framing strips them of moral complexity; their struggles are not seen as political, social, or even practical, but as a fundamental flaw in their very nature.

This bias is explicitly voiced through characters like Keesha, an elf who spits out her racist belief that all humans are parasites. The show never challenges her view—instead, it validates it visually and narratively. Viren, a human who embodies intelligence and ambition, is transformed as she speaks into a literal parasite monster through dark magic, reinforcing the idea that human striving is inherently corrupting.

The series does not invite viewers to see the human perspective. Viren’s desperation to save Katolis from famine is not explored as a tragic necessity but condemned as villainous. When Ezran is challenged, it's either by angry morons or people who are left off-screen. Visually and narratively, the show reinforces this bias. In season 7, when Ezran finally considers defending Katolis from dragon attacks, the cinematography echoes earlier scenes depicting Viren’s villainy. The message is clear: even self-defense is framed as morally suspect when it is humans who do it.

The narrative does not care about these contradictions. According to it, dark magic is human, and therefore a corruption. The Arcanum is Xadian, and therefore a gift.

I don't mind the contradictions itself, but the way the show doesn't adress it : for example, Runaan, who, as an efficient assassin whose credo consists on taking as little lives as possible lives while respecting life's inner value, also happens to have been tortured, should revile useless suffering. He could tell Callum to stop torturing Claudia, and Callum refuses to, arguing, to Runaan's horror, it's a necessity : therefore Viren's logic of "necessary sacrifices" isn't just a byproduct of dark magic but is applicable to any sort of power.

Viren saves Katolis with the exact spell he used to protect his soldiers from the fire, and which back then had allowed the protagonists to kill all of them without a second thought -yet as the spell is revealed to actually have no dehumanizing effect at all, the protagonists conveniently never are put in front of this and therefore never face the implication : it means they actually did kill real people back then at the battle of the Storm Spire, and their peace was built on ground saturated with blood they spilled. I'm repeating myself, but I wouldn't mind this if the show took time to address that. And since it doesn't, it's clearly unintended.

Another example of that is the way no one wonders what Callum's access to magic, or the Cosmic order's murder of Leola, means. Everyone thought human magic was impossible up until this point, and Ezran reveals in a dialog after the timeskip that it's now known that Callum actually isn't the first. This discovery completely changes how the power imbalance between Xadians and humans was thought of : turns out it isn't natural, but orchestrated by the Cosmic Order. But the show doesn't seem to realize this at all.

It is not that TDP paints Xadians as perfect -it really doesn't, but that it never truly demands introspection from them. An angry mob chases Rayla down because she is an Elf, but the moonshadow children (whom we have all reason to think are being raised by the same "Nothing in humans is worth mercy" principles as Runaan was), are somehow absolutely adorable to Callum because systematic prejudice apparently doesn't exist in Xadia. When Ezran preaches peace, it is always humanity that must rise to the occasion. When Viren falls, his downfall is treated as the natural consequence of human arrogance. When Zubeia, the widow of a king who murdered countless humans, steps in to help the heroes, she is never asked to even acknowledge her people’s past crimes. She is simply accepted.

The show *does* depict Xadian atrocities (the ethnic cleansing of humans, the unprovoked burning of towns, Avizandum's indiscriminate slaughters), but these events are not treated as a moral burden for Xadia to bear. In contrast, human violence is always tied to questions of morality, accountability, and cycles of vengeance. When Viren commits atrocities, they are framed as moral failings that demand consequences. When Avizandum, a random red dragon or even Ezran kills humans (he kind of tried to burn thousands of people alive), it is either ignored, excused, or at best framed as an unfortunate necessity. Sol Regem is the only dragon portrayed as a monster. Zubeia, despite her attempts at killing Harrow and Ezran that kickstarted the shows, is never once portrayed as having any *moral obligation* to recognize this crime or even human suffering. Ezran straight-up defends Aviandum's massacres, saying it was all to protect Xadia, and no one bats an eye, not even Callum, who lost Sarai at his hands as she was preventing a famine he caused. Plus, Callum sadly actually knew her, on contrary to Ezran.

The season 2 scene where a dragon burns a human town is one of the most glaring examples of this bias. The dragon’s actions are never explained, never questioned, and never even *remembered* by anyone. Soren, who wants to kill the dragon *after* it has already committed mass murder for no reason, is framed as the real problem.

Viren, for all his hubris, eventually spends three seasons agonizing over his remorse, failures, self-hatred and desperation. Soren acknowledges his wrongs and grows from them. Even Claudia shows guilt over what she does. But no Xadians express remorse over the sufferings of humans, including literal ethnic cleansing. Karim is too much of an idiot, constantly humiliated and getting a ridiculously funny death, to be a believable threat; and Janai never seems to struggle against her own old prejudice, it's just gone.

Xadians are allowed to move on from their history without reckoning with it. Humans are not. And so, despite its gestures toward nuance, *The Dragon Prince* remains a story where only one side is asked to do reflective criticism.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind any of that if it were intentional. I would even praise it. It would then show incredible protagonists whose naivete fails to acknowledge that peace isn't peace if only the side that is still a victim of a huge imbalance of power reflects and atones.

The show, in Arc II, almost succeeds in this when portraying Ezran's failed diplomatic feast. But since anyone who opposes Ezran either is portrayed as a brat (Viren, Kaseef, Karim) or not given a voice or even an appearance at all (who tore this portrait and why?), it fails - but how are we supposed to understand Soren's side when he says anyone who disagrees with Ezran's policy deserves to be eaten by Zubeia?

And the show almost succeeded in portraying complexity when Ezran himself, hit in his heart twice in a row when Sol destroyed his home and Runaan was set free without first taking accountability, eventually takes measures to ensure Xadia never attacks again (the show even frames him in similar angles and words than Viren). But it comes way too late.

And the show almost succeeds at portraying complexity when the archdragons are given an entire memorial in the cemetery of their victims but Viren's very name is entirely erased while he just sacrificed himself saving Katolis - and also prevented literal famines. It is a golden opportunity to reflect upon selective memory. But since that erasure, all though carefully thought out as a punishment for Viren by the narrative, is never addressed or brought upon by any of the characters (I don't know, something like, "He did great things. Terrible things, but great things as well." "However controversial he was, he did save us more than once" "Are you mad? Others might be tempted to follow his example." "I agree. This is something we have the duty to prevent. We can't let the future generations abide by his justifications and crimes." "Crown guard Soren, what are your thoughts on this matter?" "Do as you see fit. This ... man... wasn't my father. Whatever his legacy is, I will have no part in it."), it instead feels like it's so obvious it shouldn't even be discussed. Granted, the show does the same with Karim, who justifies his supremacist views appealing to History, only to be crushed by it as a really fun gag. But since Viren actually had a point, on contrary to Karim, his erasure feels unfair.

However, I just did a huge generalization... for have to adress the case of Runaan!

Runaan, as an assassin who carried out Xadian orders, is the *only* Xadian character who is truly forced to reckon with his actions. He killed Harrow not as a lone rogue actor as I thought until season 7 since Zubeia's role is completely ignored, but as an agent of Xadian authority—Zubeia’s authority. And yet, when the time comes for accountability, he is alone in his guilt.

Runaan's guilt is genuine, a weight he carries throughout. He doesn’t ask to be excused. He acknowledges that the culture he was raised in was toxic. He doesn’t demand that Ezran absolve him. He simply acknowledges what he has done and begs for forgiveness, fully aware that he may never receive it. This is, ironically, the *most balanced* approach to morality the show has ever taken.

But it comes too late. Seven seasons too late. And worse, it is *undone* by the revelation that Harrow was alive all along. What could have been a powerful moment—a Xadian finally confronting the weight of their actions, without excuse or justification—is cheapened by the show’s refusal to let the consequences be real. If Harrow is still alive, then Runaan didn’t truly take anything irreparable from anyone.

And so the show wastes its one opportunity to truly explore Xadian accountability. Runaan is an outlier, a singular case that never expands into a larger conversation. Meanwhile, Zubeia, who is the one who gave Runaan the order to kill Harrow, is never asked to answer for it. She remains the benevolent dragon queen, taxi-driving the protagonists while avoiding any real introspection -aside from a short story. Ezran is the one who has to do all the diplomacy work.

If *The Dragon Prince* had committed to this moment earlier then perhaps the show could have made good on its premise of breaking cycles. But instead, it falls into its old habit: absolving Xadians without demanding growth, while humans continue to bear the weight of history alone. Humans who commit atrocities are framed as reflections of humanity’s *inherent* tendency toward war and destruction. For example, the very late reveal in Book 7 that it was the humans that devastated their own lands because of their greed feels like an attempt at ignoring the ethnic cleansing and oppression Xadia submitted them to in the first place.

In season 6, we are told the story of how Leola got murdered by the Cosmic Order a few centuries ago because she taught Primal Magic to humans. This knowledge was erased, leaving Aaravos as its sole bearer : yet despite Callum's status as the first human wielding Primal Magic for centuries, this discovery never is shown to recontextualize the past and recent history between Xadians and Humans, and Callum's safety is never compromised by the Cosmic Order. And the heroes are never shown as to unknowingly enforce an unfair status-quo. As they are fighting Aaravos, they are simply portrayed as defeating Evil. The Cosmic Order never appears or reacts to any of Aaravos or Callum's actions, leaving us to wonder if Aaravos just made them up so Claudia and the viewer would side with him.

And then, there’s Viren. The character who has borne the *entire* moral weight of the show’s conflict from the very beginning. The one who suffers, agonizes, and ultimately dies twice—first as a so-called “Disney villain,” then as a broken man who finally understands the cost of his choices. But even in his lowest moments, even in his most genuine sacrifices, the show never gives him a pass.

In Arc I, he was a clear victim of the Magneto syndrome, the narrative trick where a character fighting against oppression is deliberately villainized to prevent the audience from engaging with their ideas. Viren, despite being the only character who directly challenges Xadia’s superiority, is not ultimately not allowed to remain the nuanced character he was first portrayed as. Instead, he is turned into a *Disney villain*, complete with glowing eyes, sadism, Nazi references and sinister smiles, so that his ideology can be dismissed without true debate. His valid criticisms of Xadian arrogance, his recognition of the inherent power imbalance between humans and elves, his warnings that peace is impossible when one side is forced to *earn* its existence—all of it is buried under the weight of his aesthetic villainy.

This is why his death at the end of the first arc is the moment the show brushes aside all of Xadia’s wrongs, all its atrocities, in the name of peace. With Viren gone, with the “evil human” defeated and all of his convienently monsterified humans killed, the story no longer has to acknowledge the legitimacy of his fears. There is no reckoning for the ethnic cleansing of humanity. No reflection on how Xadians have treated humans as disposable. No examination of the *reasons* that led Viren to act in the first place. His death is not just the end of his character—it is the *erasure* of his argument. When the exact thing Viren was fearing eventually happens to the capital in season 6, all though Ezran in season 7 does finally acknowledge that maybe it's not a good idea to have no protection when your immediate neighbors are dragons, he is framed in evil angles as he is taking dispositions.

Viren is not allowed to move on from his mistakes the way Xadians are. He is never given the luxury of having his violence framed as an unfortunate necessity, despite constantly refering to this concept. His use of dark magic, even when it is to *save lives*, is treated as an unforgivable sin - he only needed Lissa's tears to save their dying boy and the show had the audacity to frame that as rape, while Callum’s acquisition of an Arcanum—something that should be equally terrifying, given how we’ve seen it used for torture—is treated as a glorious evolution.

Unlike Zubeia, unlike Janai, unlike any Xadian character who has benefited from systemic oppression with the exception of Runaan, Viren is expected to bear his sins until the very end. As he asks for anyone to listen to him after he learned the errors of his ways, he is told he doesn't deserve any mercy. He started his last season finally free yet ends it trapped in a cell, framed as a butterfly caught in a spider's web, spiraling in further despair. He decides to burn his note to Soren, where he explains his guilt, and thus carries it with him to the grave. And after he sacrificed himself to save a city, he is eventually completely forgotten by history, not even getting mentioned by any of the characters while the Archdragons have an entire memorial built in a cemetery full of their victims. I understand putting past grievances behind, but what would Xadians think of a memorial to Viren built right in the middle of Lux Aurea?

Killing the princes, the false-flag operation, destroying Lux, all that was bad. I'm not saying he was right on everything. But the show won't really acknowledge that he was actually right on *anything*. The truth—the one the show refuses to fully acknowledge—is that Viren was right about far more than the story allows. He was right about dark magic being humanity’s only means of survival, right about the hypocrisy of Xadian arrogance, right about the *inevitability* of conflict when one side is forced to constantly prove its worth. And yet, even as the world validates his warnings, even as the destruction he predicted comes to pass in season VI, he remains the villain. Ezran is framed similarly as he was, using the same shot composition, poses and vocabulary but no one ever says "Damn, he actually had a point." Because TDP was never interested in truly engaging with his perspective—it only ever wanted him to serve as a cautionary tale to this lesson :

It's not the oppressors who must reckon with their people's crimes but the oppressed who must prove themselves deserving of peace.

The show doesn’t even seem aware of what it is doing. It is not an assumed narrative choice that would say "Two obstacles to peace there are : prejudice on both sides, and when only one side agrees to make concessions." No, this bias is accidental and that’s what makes it so frustrating.

It's so terribly sad because I think it's completely unintended.

[panlight]

also continuing off the Informed Traits discussion, just how much of Caslisle's compassion/kindness is informed? Bella and Edward both make it seem like he's this saintly figure and pillar of goodness, but then there's moments where he does things that make you wonder if the view on him is just really rose-tinted.

Again, going back on BD where he invites his friends to witness and doesn't seem to care that they're hunting humans just outside forks/la push and let's them stay even after already knowing what their presence triggers the tribe to phase, the book also reveals that he took Jacob's blood sample to study without his consent?? Like a lab experiment???? (I learned this through a post showcasing that part in the book) Also in a podcast I listen to that discusses the plot of MS, he apparently fakes being Billy's distant relative (impersonating an indigenous person uhhmmm 😬) and, well,,,, lets just say I can see why some people think that entire phone call just gave colonizer vibes. AND!!! didn't he drug a woman to steal their car and kinda doesn't react much when they caused a massive car pileup??

On the one hand i dont mind if it's meant to show us that even Carlisle's sense of morality is flawed, but between Bella's "the Cullens are good to the core" and every time Edward talks about him in MS, it's feels more to me like another unreliable narrator trope.

This one is harder for me because, see, I want the compassion to be real because I think the concept of a vampire blessed/cursed with Super Compassion is legit fascinating! As I've said about 23470234 times, my favorite aspect of vampire stories is how they become a vampire, how you cope, the choices you make, what you accept and what you deny about your new reality. The idea that for this one guy, becoming a vampire made him even more compassionate is just the kind of twist on it that I've never seen anywhere else and I think it's really interesting, actually. A dud of a superpower, sure; the innate push-pull of vampire instincts vs super compassion compels me, though.

But obviously I can see where it comes from that it could be an unreliable narrator thing or outright lie. Or at least a show vs tell problem where we're told he's compassionate but actions suggests otherwise.

I think it falls apart in two major ways:

The protagonist-centered morality. Everything in the story is about facilitating the E/B romance. Carlisle's alleged compassion can only help that, he can't hinder it. They HAVE to move back to Forks so the story can happen, he can't say "huh maybe it's NOT compassionate to move back to a place where people know what we are and are terrified of us." He can't refuse to drug the soccer mom because they have to save Bella! He can't object to having witnesses gather in Forks and force more teenage boys to phase and put humans at risk of being eaten because we have to save Renesmee! He can compassionately offer Bree surrender, but neither he nor Esme can do any more than that to try and save her, because that would complicate Bella's upcoming wedding. The Bella-centricity of it all sits like a supermassive black hole in the middle of the story, disrupting the orbits and bending the light of the other characters.

Carlisle can't be any more compassionate than his author, and that limits him. We had a fandom discussion about this a few years ago, but basically because SM doesn't see the problems with how the Quileute characters are treated in the story, none of the characters can, either. I remember calling it the moral version of how Alice is supposed to be a fashionista, but because SM doesn't really know anything about high fashion, there's a lot of 'tell' about her being this fashion icon but the actual show of clothes in the story doesn't live up to it. Or Carlisle himself -- he's supposed to be this genius doctor who has studied medicine and science for centuries, but SM isn't a doctor or a scientist, so some of the stuff she makes him say doesn't live up to the idea she planted. SM totally missed the settler-colonial stuff, the dehumanizing language, etc etc, so none of the characters, not even Compassionate Carlisle or Power-of-Heart Esme can.

tl;dr I like to think the compassion is real but hindered by the narrative insisting on prioritizing the love story AND Carlisle being unable to be more compassionate than his author. But that's because I WANT it to be real because I think the concept is really interesting, even if the execution is lacking. I don't need or want him to be Perfect or a Saint, and I'm sure existing as a VAMPIRE of all things would naturally come into conflict with compassion all the time (examples in the book is him not wanting to kill James and it leading to the extended hunt instead; offering surrender to Bree but knowing if he goes against the Volturi they could kill the whole family; telling Sam in BD that this isn't his fight and 'don't get your family slaughtered for pride,' even as Sam insists they have to be there for Jacob and Jacob has to be there for Nessie [blargh].) and that struggle and how he deals with it when he's in a situation with no Compassionate choice is available would be great. Even that car chase in Midnight Sun could maybe work if the story gave Carlisle any room to protest until Alice insists it's the Only Way!!!! or whatever, and some follow up where like oh huh weird some random charity swooped in to pay all the medical bills of everyone involved in the pile-up and bought them all new cars. If Edward, Jasper, etc can't turn off their gifts, Carlisle shouldn't be able to either, even when being forced into uncompassionate actions. But SM doesn't care. She only cares about Carlisle, let alone his compassion, inasmuch as she needed a kindly father figure to set up the vegetarian vampire thing and for Bella to have a convenient doctor.

[generalluxun]

It's a case of the storyline not matching the show format.

Miraculous Ladybug: Protagonist centered morality, episodic, status quo.

These are all structural choices, and on their own they are fine! They just don't mesh well with this particular plot.

Status quo means any major ML developments happen on a seasonal basis. Nominally the finalé, rarely in another episode, but always slowwwly. You have to be able to watch the episodes within a season out of order and not miss much.

Episodic means episodes are self contained. This means what us a deep burning secret in one episode that weighs on a character's consciousness, can be completely unmentioned and make zero impact in the next. 25% of the season's episodes out and we get one serious mention of it. It can't resolve yet because (see above) so it'll just keep hanging out, but maybe we'll have a couple light hearted episodes in between where everyone is smiling and happy and that won't seem psychotic at all, will it?

Lastly and most important, the protagonist centered morality. If all this happened to a secondary character, or one who is supposed to be generally wrong or grey by default, it would work a lot better. Marinette can make mistakes, but the show structure means she is always 'right by the end of the episode'. Whether she learns a lesson or is vindicated by events. Marinette=Right/Good/Sympathetic is a core element. So she comes off as more aware/authoritative/thoughtful in all these other elements and so dragging this lie with her feels less like a mistake and more like a deliberate self serving choice.

The Marinette we see day-to-day *should* realize her mistake but she *can't*, nor can she act like it is constantly eating at her. All these structural elements combine to make her look awful and make people reach for desperate and unhealthy defenses because they've been trained to love Marinette. That's the hero! She's just like me! Etc.

I can't wait for this plot to be over.

This season is really showing us Marinette cannot handle other people’s negative emotions. Like she could handle Chloé being confrontational, but her attempt to “help” with Audrey is one of her worst early fumbles. She can’t stand somebody thinking bad of her. Not even complete strangers.

Boy oh boy is this character flaw gonna punch her in the face when her avoidance and lies get exposed.

Yeah like

Understandable behavior for a teenage girl BUT I do hope this is a growing moment

[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.

[astralleywright]

not but an eye-opening post into the thought process of the fandom is someone saying "how dare they not think of how the other god-loving pcs will react to this!" yes. the other pcs. because fuck the feelings of the npcs, they don't matter. only the pcs matter. they're the heroes and thus have the right to choose for everyone, so the moment that they betray their coda of "black and white beat the bad guy and run" they're evil. who cares if some pcs were handed everything on a platter by the gods? they deserved it for their divine right of being main characters. it reminds me of d20 "anti ratgrinder" arguments that said they deserved to die for being jealous of the pcs.

no because like, for a while there the most common argument for keeping the gods was how many people followed them and looked up to them. while the counter-argument was about how many ppl they had killed and the fact that, after 800+ years of self-reflection and feeling bad, they were raring to do it all over again like. genuinely tragic for those who followed the gods to lose them, it will in fact be a massive loss socioculturally and I think it would make complete sense for many mortals to mourn that, even if they simply leave instead of die. but it will not be as massive a loss as the amount of deaths that would happen in a second Calamity lmao

[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.