#the real world is not black and white good and evil

[alsmediadissection]

˗ˏˋperception of good and evil in Wicked analysis ´ˎ˗

!! i want to preface this by saying i'm not a professional critic, and this is not a 100% guide to anything either. do not take anything i type online to absolute heart, this is simply my personal interpretation of this piece of media !! (i also want to mention that i did not read the Wicked novel/series by Gregory Maguire)

! CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE WHOLE MUSICAL !

In Wicked, the dichotomy of good and evil is a central theme, but it is deliberately deconstructed and redefined throughout the story. Rather than adhering to a simplistic binary, Wicked portrays morality as subjective, fluid, and deeply influenced by societal narratives and power structures. By examining the characters, their choices, and the propaganda of Oz, Wicked challenges audiences to reconsider what it truly means to be "good" or "evil."

Wicked explores the subjectivity of morality though out the entire musical. In the world of Oz, the labels of "good" and "wicked" are not inherent truths but are assigned based on perspective and propaganda. Elphaba, labeled as the "Wicked Witch of the West," is far from the villain her title suggests. Her actions—defending the oppressed, resisting corrupt authority, and seeking justice—align more closely with traditional notions of heroism. However, because her resistance threatens the established order, she is vilified.

Conversely, Glinda, known as "Glinda the Good," gains her title not necessarily through moral superiority but through aligning with the dominant powers of Oz. While she performs acts of kindness and ultimately grows into a more compassionate figure, her initial rise to prominence is steeped in self-interest and complicity in the Wizard's regime. This contrast between public perception and personal morality highlights the constructed nature of good and evil.

As well as the role of propaganda can warp the perception of good and evil. The Wizard’s regime uses propaganda to manipulate public perception and maintain control. Elphaba’s defiance is framed as wickedness, and her physical difference—her green skin—is used to other her further. The Wizard and Madame Morrible craft a narrative in which Elphaba becomes the scapegoat for the problems in Oz, distracting from their own oppressive policies, such as the silencing of Animals and exploitation of the populace.

This use of propaganda mirrors real-world historical and political strategies, where those in power vilify dissenters to solidify their authority. The portrayal of Elphaba as "wicked" becomes a convenient tool to suppress her revolutionary ideals and maintain the Wizard’s façade of benevolence.

The characters in Wicked embody the blurred lines between good and evil, challenging the audience’s preconceptions and signifying the complexity of people : beyond black and white.

Elphaba: Elphaba’s moral compass is unwavering—she fights for justice, protects the marginalized, and prioritizes truth over personal gain. However, her means of resistance sometimes involve morally ambiguous actions, such as using forbidden spells. These complexities humanize her, making her a symbol of how "good" people can be demonized for challenging systemic injustice

Glinda: Glinda’s journey from superficiality to wisdom reflects the complexities of moral growth. While she initially prioritizes her image and societal approval, her experiences with Elphaba force her to confront her complicity in the injustices of Oz. Her eventual choice to stand up for what is right, even within the constraints of her role, illustrates how goodness is a process, not a fixed state.

The Wizard: The Wizard’s charm and charisma mask his true nature as a manipulative and self-serving leader. He embodies the archetype of a "benevolent dictator," someone who uses the guise of good to justify exploitative policies. His character underscores how power can corrupt and how evil can hide behind a veneer of kindness.

Wicked also explores how context and intention influence moral judgment, , the fluidity of good and evil. For example, Elphaba’s use of magic to save others is seen as dangerous and unnatural, while the Wizard’s far more destructive actions are normalized as necessary governance. This discrepancy reveals how morality is often judged not by actions but by who performs them and the narrative constructed around those actions.

The relationship between Elphaba and Glinda further illustrates this fluidity. Their bond transcends societal labels, showing that goodness is often found in personal connections and shared humanity rather than grand gestures or public titles. Both women make mistakes, but their ability to learn and grow from them highlights the dynamic nature of morality.

By deconstructing the good/evil binary, Wicked warns against the dangers of oversimplified moral frameworks and the dangers of binary thinking. Binary thinking fosters division, scapegoating, and dehumanization, as seen in the treatment of Elphaba and the Animals. The musical advocates for empathy, critical thinking, and understanding as tools to navigate the complexities of morality.

In Wicked, good and evil are not fixed categories but constructs shaped by perception, power, and context. Through its characters and narrative, the musical invites audiences to question societal narratives and recognize the humanity in those who are labeled as "other." By rejecting simplistic moral binaries, Wicked delivers a profound message about the complexities of justice, the power of resistance, and the transformative potential of compassion.

this does not mean that right and wrong is not real, but it does mean that the ideology of thinking that things are only either GOOD or EVIL is extremely dangerous.

[triaelf9]

honestly one of the most disgusting things ppl can do is weaponize the various atrocities occurring around the world to "gotcha" people online and win The Morality Game.

Especially if the ppl you're going after are part of those targeted.

[faggotcitosis]

i think miss roan talks big game when her uncle is a gop representative in missouri & sponsored an anti abortion bill huh? especially after she said she has no issue having republican friends & family?

[boysnberriespie]

With as limited snark as I can say this with, do we not think the geopolitical situation of a fictional world would be changed by the presence of the literal anti-Christ?

[aenramsden]

The following is not my idea; it was the original brainchild of a friend of mine named Omicron, with help from various others including EarthScorpion, TenfoldShields, @havocfett and ShintheNinja:

So, you know what I want to do one day? Run (or play in) a D&D campaign in which the Big Bad Super Dragon that is fuckoff ancient and unfathomably powerful and whose actions have shaped history and bent the course of nations and had repercussions on the whole culture and society in the region where it's set; the Bonus Special Boss for some endgame optional quest after you defeat the direct BBEG and win the campaign...

... is a white dragon.

To explain this for people not deep into 5e monster lore; D&D dragons are sapient beings, and known for their instincts and tendencies, and whenever you meet an big evil dragon that's really old it's usually this ancient creature of terrible intellect Smaug-ing it up all over the place.

Except white dragons are fucking stupid. Like, they're still capable of speech and thought! They're just… feral, hungry morons. And you almost never see them portrayed as ancient wyrms for that reason; they lack majesty. Critical Role did it, yes, but even then, Vorugal is explicitly the most bestial member of the Chroma Conclave, and the others are the more intelligent planners and long-term threats. An ancient white as a nation-defining endboss, though; not a thug for a smarter master but as the strongest and biggest threat around is just not the sort of thing you tend to see.

Adventurers: "Oh wise Therunax the Munificent, gold dragon of Law and Good, what can you tell us adventurers of the evil dragons which rule this land?" Therunax the Munificent, 500-year old Gold Dragon: "Good adventurers, know this: this land is torn apart by the evil of Tiamat's spawn. The eastern marches are the dwelling of Furinar the Plague-Bringer, black dragoness whose hoard is a thousand sicknesses contained in the body of her tributes. The southern volcanic mountains are the roosting of Angrar the Wrathful, the fiery red dragon, who brings magmatic fury on all who do not worship him. And the northern peaks are home to Face-Biter Mike, the oldest and most powerful of all, of whom I dread to speak." Adventurers: "F-Face-Biter Mike???" Therunax: "Oh yes, verily indeed; two thousand years has Mike lived, and his eyes have seen the rise and fall of five empires, and a hundred and score champions have sought to slay him; and each and every one he bit their fucking face off."

Like... I want to see a campaign where Face-Biter Mike is genuinely the most powerful dragon in the region, if not the entire world. Where sometimes he descends on a city to grab himself some meatsicles and causes a localised ice age by the beat of his vast wings and the frigid wastes of his mighty breath and by the chill his mere presence brings to everything for miles around him, and everyone just has to deal with that for the next decade. An entire era of civilization comes to an end, an empire falls, tens of thousands starve in the winter, all because Mike wanted a snack. Where his hoard is an unfathomably vast mass of jewels and artefacts and precious stones frozen in an unmelting glacier, except he is a nouveau riche idiot with fuckall appraising skill, so half of his hoard is coloured glass or worthless knicknacks, and he doesn't give a shit.

"Your Draconic Majesty, this crown is… It's pyrite." "Yeah, well, it's brighter than this dusty old thing made out of real gold, it's my new best treasure. Throw the other one away." "…throw the Burnished Tiara of Bahamut, forged in the First Age of Man, your majesty???" "See? I can't even remember its fucking name." "But my lord-" "DO YOU WANT TO BE A MEATSICLE" "…I will fetch a trash bag, your majesty."

But at the same time, he's not stupid, he's just simple, and in some ways that makes him more dangerous than the usual kinds of scheming Big Bad you see in these things, while simultaneously justifying why Orcus remains on his throne (because he's lazy). Face-Biter Mike doesn't make convoluted plans or run labyrinthine schemes; he just has a talent for violence and a pragmatic, straightforward approach to turning any kind of problem he struggles with into a problem that can be resolved with violence. Face-Biter Mike has one talent and it's horrifying physical power, so his approach to any complicated problem is "how do I turn this into a situation where I can fly down and bite this dude's face off?" with absolutely no regard for the collateral damage or consequences of doing so, because those are also things he can turn into face-bitable problems.

"My lord, the dread necromancer Nikodemion is using his undead dragons to attempt a conquest of the eastern kingdom; his agents are everywhere, his plans are centuries in the making, what can we do against such a mastermind?" "I'm gonna fly over the capital and eat the eastern king." "M-my lord???" "The kingdom will collapse without leadership, Nikodemion will win his war, he'll take the capital and crown himself king." "And that helps us… how?" "Once he does I'll fly over to the capital and eat him." "…" "This is why you advisors all suck. You're all about convoluted plans when the only thing I need to win is know where my enemy is so I can fly down there and eat him. Stop overthinking things."

And, like, yeah, it's a simplistic plan, but when you're several hundred tons of nigh invincible magical death, you don't need brilliant strategy; the smartest way to win a war is, in this case, the simplest. He's not even all that clever at figuring out the consequences of face-biting, he's just memorised the common consequences of doing so.

(If you want to go all in on Mike being the major mover and shaker in the region; Nikodemion only even has a pet zombie dragon because Mike killed the last dragon to show up and contest his turf but wasn't going to eat a whole dragon by himself. Nikodemion got to stick around and amass that much power because Mike ate the Hero of the Realm while he was adventuring because he figured the Hero would come and try to slay him at some point. Nikodemion got started because Mike ate half the leadership of the Academy of High Magic who typically keep evil wizards and necromancers in check. And then eventually this product of Mike's casual, careless actions becomes a big enough problem to bother Mike personally, at which point Mike eats him too.)

He doesn't even really fail upwards, either! He is regularly reduced to nothing but the glacier he stores his hoard in, but he's Face-Biter Mike so nobody wants to commit to actually ending him forever lest they get their faces bitten the fuck off. And his hoard's in a huge-ass magical glacier so nobody can get to it without running into the Invading Russia problem; it's hard to wage war when everything is frozen over and you're both starving and freezing to death. Once he's been beaten back to his central lair and has lost all his holdings… I mean, he's still a problem, but he's a far away problem. So he loses his assets and spends a decade in a cave brooding it up while no one dares risk trying to actually kill him, and then a generation or two later he flies down to a kobold colony and gets himself some minions, or a dragon-worshipping mage comes to offer his service against a pittance from his hoard, or a particularly stupid cult starts thinking they can get in good with him and leech off his power, and then he's (hah) snowballing again.

He's also got a very… well, the kind of weird Charisma that Grineer bosses do. Like Sargas Ruk, who's a malformed idiot, but oddly charismatic. As he's a dragon, that makes him a natural sorcerer and thus Charisma is all he needs. He's pretty relaxed when he isn't in a face-biting mood, and he's kind of infectiously optimistic, because his life has taught him that he will succeed as long as he perseveres. So he just believes it.

And sometimes that's really refreshing to work for, as an evil minion of darkness! It's like, you're coming to your Evil Dragon Lord with terrible news; you've worked for evil overlords before, you know how it goes. You fall to your knees weeping and tell him that you've failed to seize the incredibly powerful magical artifact, you think your life is forfeit. And he's just like "Eh, it's okay, these things are all over the place. Better luck next time. You remember the guy who took it, right?" and you go "Y-yes, oh great lord!" and he's like "Sweet tell me his name later and I'll grab it" and then eats a frozen adventurer he kept around as a snack.

His followers tend to quickly realise that if they fail him, bringing some temple's silver or a sack of brightly coloured beads or a couple of dead cows means he's super forgiving because at least he's got something out of the day. "Oh boy, cows? It's been forever since I had those, ever since the Orc Steppe Nomads took over it's all about goats and onions. Today is a good day." He's a master of delegation by dragon standards, in that he just tells you "Just go get it done, I don't care how" rather than micromanaging you and constantly appearing as an image in smoke or taking over your campfire.

The key part of Face-Biter Mike as a threat to players (because he exists in the context of a D&D campaign) works well in that you can rely on several known quantities:

He will not pull sneaky shit that you don't see coming

He will not make convoluted plans that you must work to unravel

He will consistently attempt to come down and wreck you personally if he finds the opportunity and you are a threat to him

You cannot fight him head-on (at least not until the last leg of the campaign, and ideally as an optional boss rather than mandatory)

So as long as you are good at staying under the radar, thwarting his minions (whom he gives broad orders to with almost zero oversight) and not putting yourself in face-biting range, you can deal with him. If you succeed, it won't be the first time Mike has lost his assets and had to go brood in his glacier for a decade or two before rebuilding. It happens; he can deal with it. And that's a win for you within the context of a single campaign, so take the win.

And if you're not going to use him as an enemy, he works pretty well as a quest-giver, too! The costs for failure are obvious and straightforward, and "do whatever, just get me mine" means that players have a lot of freedom in accomplishing their goals. As far as evil overlords go he is actually one of the least dangerous to work for; his pride is relatively subdued by draconic standards, his goals are simple and typically achievable, and he is easily pleased.

(There's also a good chance he is the forefather of any draconic sorcerer in your party, because Face Biter Mike is a deadbeat dad.)

[jewish-sideblog]

I think people forget that the Nazis never said they were the bad guys. If someone says, hey, I’m evil! You don’t let them take over your country. They presented themselves as scientific, not hateful. By their own account, they were progressives, and the superiority of White Europe over the other races was a proven and immutable fact. They had scientists and archaeologists and historians to prove it. They didn’t tell people they wanted to kill the Jews because they were hateful. They manufactured evidence to frame us for very real tragedies, and they had methodological research to prove that we were genetically predisposed to misconduct. Wouldn’t you believe that?

Hollywood has spent the last 80 years portraying the Nazis as an obvious and intimidating evil. That’s a good thing in some ways, because we want general audiences to recognize that they were evil. But we also want them to be able to recognize how and why they came to power. Not by self-describing themselves as an evil empire, but by convincing people that they were the good guys and the saviors. They hosted the Olympics. Several European countries capitulated and volunteered themselves to the Empire. There were American and British Fascist Parties. They had broad public support. Hollywood never shows that part, so general audiences never learn to recognize the actual signs of antisemitism.

People today think they can’t possibly be antisemitic, because they’re leftist! They abhor bigotry! They could never comprehend Nazi ideology coming from the mouth of a bisexual college student wearing a graphic tee and jeans. How could they? The only depiction of antisemites they’ve ever seen have been gaunt, pale, middle-aged men in black leather trench coats with skulls on their caps.

If the Nazis time-travelled from the 1930s and wanted to take power now, they’d change their original tactics, but not by much. They would target countries suffering from an identity crisis and an economic collapse. They would portray themselves as the pinnacle of what that society considers progressive. Back then, it was race science. These days it’s performative wokeness. Once they’d garnered enough respect and reputation, they’d begin manufacturing propaganda and lies to manipulate people’s anger and fears at a single target— Jews.

If the Nazis made an actual return, they wouldn’t look like neo-Nazis. They wouldn’t be nearly as obvious about their hatred. Their evil wouldn’t give them yellow eyes, and no suspenseful music would play when they walked in the room. They’d be friendly. They’d look like you. They would learn what things your community fears and what things you already hate. They would lie and fabricate evidence to connect the rich elites and the imperialists you revile to a single source of unequivocal Jewish evil. It wouldn’t be hard— they already have two-thousand years of institutional antisemitism they can rely on to paint their picture.

If you’re curious why antisemitism today is coming from grassroots organizations, young, liberal college campuses, suburban neighborhoods with pride flags and All Are Welcome Here signs? That’s why. It’s because, as a global society, we’ve forgotten that the world didn’t used to see the Nazis as bad guys. And what is forgotten about history is doomed to be repeated.

[evilwizard]

I do want to say, my views on AI “art” have changed somewhat. It was wrong of me to claim that it’s not wrong to use it in shitposts… there definitely is some degree of something problematic there.

Personally I feel like it’s one of those problems that’s best solved via lawmaking—specifically, AI generations shouldn’t be copywrite-able, and AI companies should be fined for art theft and “plagiarism”… even though it’s not directly plagiarism in the current legal sense. We definitely need ethical philosophers and lawmakers to spend some time defining exactly what is going on here.

But for civilians, using AI art is bad in the same nebulous sense that buying clothes from H&M or ordering stuff on Amazon is bad… it’s a very spread out, far away kind of badness, which makes it hard to quantify. And there’s no denying that in certain contexts, when applied in certain ways (with actual editing and artistic skill), AI can be a really interesting tool for artists and writers. Which again runs into the copywrite-ability thing. How much distance must be placed between the artist and the AI-generated inspiration in order to allow the artist to say “this work is fully mine?”

I can’t claim to know the answers to these issues. But I will say two things:

Ignoring AI shit isn’t going to make it go away. Our tumblr philosophy is wildly unpopular in the real world and most other places on the internet, and those who do start using AI are unfortunately gonna have a big leg up on those who don’t, especially as it gets better and better at avoiding human detection.

Treating AI as a fundamental, ontological evil is going to prevent us from having these deep conversations which are necessary for us—as a part of society—to figure out the ways to censure AI that are actually helpful to artists. We need strong unions making permanent deals now, we need laws in place that regulate AI use and the replacement of humans, and we need to get this technology out of the hands of huge megacorporations who want nothing more than to profit off our suffering.

I’ve seen the research. I knew AI was going to big years ago, and right now I know that it’s just going to get bigger. Nearly every job is in danger. We need to interact with this issue—sooner rather than later—or we risk losing all of our futures. And unfortunately, just as with many other things under capitalism, for the time being I think we have to allow some concessions. The issue is not 100% black or white. Certainly a dark, stormy grey of some sort.

But please don’t attack middle-aged cat-owners playing around with AI filters. Start a dialogue about the spectrum of morality present in every use of AI—from the good (recognizing cancer cells years in advance, finding awesome new metamaterials) to the bad (megacorporations replacing workers and stealing from artists) to the kinda ambiguous (shitposts, app filter that makes your dog look like a 16th century British royal for some reason).

And if you disagree with me, please don’t be hateful about it. I fully recognize that my current views might be wrong. I’m not a paragon of moral philosophy or anything. I’m just doing my best to live my life in a way that improves the world instead of detracting from it. That’s all any of us can do, in my opinion.

[thydungeongal]

I genuinely don't understand what y'all mean by "ok to kill enemies." Everytime it comes up I feel less and less confident I am following the conversation.

D&D kind of has, as part of its DNA, the idea that combat will eventually happen in the game. To that end, throughout the history of the game there have been many different types of guy that in the text of the game have been presented as like almost self-evidently okay to kill simply because. While different editions of the game have tried to move away from some of the more overtly problematic portrayals of this (basically saying that certain types of humanoids are okay to kill because they look funny and live in caves is kinda fucked up), the truth is that pretty much every attempt to look for a suitable Boogeyman that player characters can kill without any iffy ethics about it is going to end up really weird.

Anyway this is why people will often look for types of guy to present as enemies where characters can engage in no-thoughts-head-empty lethal sports with them without anyone needing to have a "wait a minute, are we the baddies?" moment. Demons and the undead are pretty easy to go for here.

My personal favorite approach is to just accept the fact that D&D kinda sucks with black-and-white morality and instead of making the conflict in the world about clear good and evil teams make it about different groups of people with different goals. Orcs can be present but they're no longer "the evil guys it's always morally okay to kill because of biotruths" but instead just some guys who might sometimes have violent disagreements with other people.

Anyway a lot of this stuff doesn't mean anything and as said not engaging with games as texts on this level isn't really necessary to enjoy them. But for me at least it can often elevate gameplay. When bandits aren't just some guys who decided to become evil criminals some day but actual people whose banditry is a response to something going on in the world and their lives, it suddenly makes the conflicts in the world a lot more real and grounded (and sometimes killing those bandits can be the right thing to do, but sometimes negotiating with them or even cooperating them can be the right thing to do. Basically, once you start thinking about all the different types of Guy that inhabit the worlds of D&D not just as game tokens that player characters can hit to make XP come out [although that is also fine and dandy as a playstyle] but as living thinking creatures with actual goals, the types of narratives the game starts to produce also expands a hundredfold.)

Anyway I'm not sure if that answers your question because I went on like a bunch of tangents. But it was also kind of a vague question.

[weemietime]

Let's not devolve into right-wing extremism whilst advocating for basic human rights over here. I see a lot of Jews who are angry at the double standards levied at them from organizations like the United Nations. The UN has a big corruption problem, we all know this.

But we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good, either. Refusing to have a global international organization like the United Nations as a whole is anti-democratic and illiberal. Whether you advocate for the UN to be replaced by a less corrupted international system or whether you advocate for the UN itself to evolve into this system: we want international cooperation. We want international law.

How the UN is doing things is very flawed, I agree. It accuses Israel of being uniquely and specially evil whilst giving Maduro and Jinping a seat at the table. Nevertheless, we want Palestine to focus on genuine state-building. If they did that, they would improve the lives of their citizens who would be less influenced by radical ideology. If they did that they would have robust social programs aimed at educating their populace and integrating with their neighbors as opposed to fighting them all.

Palestinians having a country of their own is a good thing. Gaza being a country is a good thing. Palestinians being prosperous and peaceful is a good thing. Dissolving the West Bank settlements is understandably a complicated issue, because these settlements do provide insulation in the form of security against terrorism.

But they're illegal for a good reason, because there is an extremely unequal systemic institutional governance there and because the settlers are emboldened by extremists in the government to perpetuate violence, theft and dehumanization. It's obviously strange to see an anarchist advocating for these systems, but I understand the world we live in. I don't claim to be a real, true-blue anarchist. I believe in mutual aid, cooperation, voluntary immigration, and close-knit communities.

I don't believe in policing as it is now. It is possible for us to have loosely-networked communities of people who are provided resources and protection by elected leadership, who still maintain their individual autonomy.

It's not black and white, it's never been black and white. International organization is important, it's how we progress socially and technologically. Land, citizenship is different than a state apparatus, but we can't ignore that right now, state-building and government is a part of international organization.

[love-byers]

mike's weird language when he talks about el and their relationship

part of the equation of stranger things relationships is building the relationship through emotional connection, not physical intimacy and outright saying how you feel. it's a trope in st that the couples refuse to admit their feelings for some time before getting together. "we're just friends", "she's not my girlfriend" etc etc. the denial is super endearing. and even when the couples are finally together, this doesn't change. they're literally just the same duo same friends, but they kiss sometimes. they barely even acknowledge that they're together. it's a great trope in my opinion.

so a couple years ago i was rewatching st and made a list of everytime mike said something weird. meaning, every time mike did not adhere to this formula and stood out from the rest of the couples. i made a tiktok about it too so im basically quoting that in this post. something i stressed in that video was that because we have the other couples as source material, clearly the writers are capable of not doing this. they are capable of writing a good serious relationship, but they're choosing not to with mlvn. so keep in mind, the other couples (besides maybe stancy) do not do this and mike is supposedly, according to his own words, is madly and deeply in love with her throughout all of this and knows it.

Season 3

"Romantic time with my girlfriend."

i'll cut this one some slack, it's just that if you were truly madly in love it would be more like "I'm spending time with el". but thats all he views it as, romantic time with his girlfriend. going to his girlfriends house to make out with her. romantic time with his girlfriend. not bonding with the person he loves.

"Did you think we were never gonna get girlfriends?"

mike is hyperfocused on the word girlfriend. she's not el, the person he loves, she's his girlfriend. he doesn't say "did you think we were never gonna fall in love?" and look i get he's only like 14 here but it's the fact that he later claims he was in love with her the entire time and knew it. he literally claims it was love at first sight.

get girlfriends. he got a girlfriend. he didn't fall in love.

"It's not my fault you don't like girls!"

again the hyperfixation on girls, get a girlfriend, liking girls. mike, why are you more focused on the fact that el is a girl and your girlfriend than the fact that she's el?

"You're the most important thing to me in the world."

finn's delivery of this is so.....

and the fact that el just stares at him blankly afterwards, like she did not buy that lmao

Season 4

"That's because she's my girlfriend, Will!"

it's not "that's because i love her and want to talk to her" or something like that, it's "thats because she's my girlfriend and that's what you're supposed to do when you have a girlfriend" not "because she's el and i love her". that plays into mike's whole charade in lenora, he's just doing things he thinks he's supposed to do when you have a girlfriend.

"You're a superhero!"

that has nothing to do with who el is as a person, especially at that moment because at that time, el didn't have her powers. at the time, everyone believed they were gone, she wouldn't be saving the world anymore. but mike is still saying how incredible she is because she's a superhero.

i hate dr brenner so fucking much, but he did say something i really agree with. el kept going back to the concept monsters and heros, and he says those are things of myth and fairytale. not everything is black and white. this is real life, not a made up story with clear good and evil. and ultimately that helps her accept what happened with 001. he was 100% right there.

then here comes mike talking about monsters and superheros again like WRAP IT UP YA'LL ARE TOO GROWN FOR THIS

"You're the most incredible person in the world!"

again, he says that, but doesn't say why. he just expects her to believe him. it's such a broad statement and doesn't connect to anything about el and her personality/interests/ideas.

"Maybe I should've said something, and if I would've said that thing, maybe she'd want me there with her, wherever she is."

he wishes he'd just said it so she'd be satisfied and want him there and he'd know she's okay, he doesn't wish he'd said it so el would know in her heart that he loves her. "i love you" to mike isn't a geniune confession of his feelings, it's a thing. it's a thing that you say. it's something he thinks he has to say because that's what couples do and it's what el wants. if you fell in love with someone at first sight you do not refer to an expression of your love for them as 'that thing'.

"Maybe I was worrying to much about el. . ."

i really don't know what he meant by this. if she is the most important thing to him in the whole world and is deeply in love with her, why in the mother FUCK would he be apologizing TO WILL for worrying too much about her. there wouldn't be too much worrying when you love someone that much.

"You can fly, you can move mountains I believe that."

she literally can't.

"I love you for exactly who you are. You're my superhero."

the first time i saw this i literally thought "oh thats not..."

because it's.....not. one or the other would've been....fine i guess. but the first preceding the other is just not it. i love you for exactly who you are, and that is my superhero. is that all she is to you, mike? el expresses constant worry of being a monster, a bad person. she's afraid that she's a monster with or without her powers. but dr owens said "I'm willing to bet you're one of the good ones." fucking OWENS said something more reassuring than her boyfriend and supposed love of her life, mike wheeler.

THATS NOT ROMANTIC.

[woodchoc-magnum]

idk. i'm annoyed.

i realise i am a fandom old at this point

and i have seen some shit in this fandom; witnessed the discourse.

and i don't post meta or spec or much of that stuff; i usually put all my ideas into fics.

but guys seriously. seriously.

eddie's current arc is not about buck.

buck and eddie are not currently dating.

buck is eddie's best friend and vice versa.

eddie is not cheating on buck.

eddie is lying to buck by omission, yes, but that is not a friendship ending offence.

eddie is on the very cusp of cheating right now. he went on a date with another woman, yes. he has not kissed her or slept with her. we are at a tipping point. we do not know what is going to happen next.

he only went on a date with another woman because she reminded him of shannon, who he is not over, who he has spent seasons trying to replace.

the point of this show is that none of the characters are perfect - and especially not buck and eddie. they all make mistakes. they have all made mistakes and will continue to do so because in real life, people don't always make the right decisions 100% of the time.

this black-and-white, morally righteous way of thinking, like eddie is suddenly evil now because he's on the cusp of cheating; that it's going to end his friendship, that buck is going to be angry at him for lying - do you have friends in real life? like, i am genuinely asking.

because if my best friend suddenly started cheating on her husband, i wouldn't be mad at her - i would be worried. am i alone in this? like i would be genuinely concerned and trying to help figure out what's going on.

all the shit i'm seeing in the fandom today, all of the spec posts and commentary about the episode and what might potentially happen, just feels like, once again, an attempt to paint eddie as the villain in the story to prop up buck. let's make eddie so terrible that buck has to have custody of christopher, right?

clearly none of you understand how a will works. it's for after you're dead. not for when you're alive.

but the main issue is this - now that buck has tommy, the people who tolerated eddie can stop pretending to like him. there's another option for buck now, so you guys don't need eddie anymore. right? am i fucking right??

i love drama as much as the next person, but in what world would buck turn on eddie because of this? in what world would the 118 shun him? he is their friend! they love him! they care about him! they are a family!

my god, nobody shunned hen when she cheated on karen. nobody shuns bobby and he indirectly killed 140 people!

eddie is a good person who makes mistakes, just like every single other character on the show.

that is the fucking point.

and the way ryan was talking in the interviews - isolation could mean any number of things. we know eddie has a tendency to isolate himself when he's feeling stressed out - does anyone remember season 3? season 5? buck literally broke down his door!

i'm just fucking tired of this bullshit.

eddie's not a bad guy because of this. he has done shitty things, yes. they all have. that's the fucking point of the show, and if you can't understand that or appreciate adult story-telling, then fuck off and watch riverdale.

[fellthemarvelous]

Aziraphale hate makes my brain hurt.

Like let's be really fuckin' for real here.

Neurodivergent fans have repeatedly said that Aziraphale is autistic coded. I agree with them. I have never been diagnosed but I wonder about myself. If only I could get a doctor to take me seriously enough to test me for it, but alas, I'm a 43-year-old woman living in the good ole US of A.

Those with religious trauma have repeatedly said that they identify with him as well. I'm one of those people. I endured 12 years of Catholic schools and just as much time being taught a very black and white view of things that I've had to spend more than 20 goddamn fucking years working to unlearn.

I find that my views as a survivor of religious abuse are often dismissed because people keep wanting to say "Aziraphale doesn't have religious trauma." Yes, thank you, I get that, but unless you've been indoctrinated and brainwashed into a very black and white view of the world, you probably don't understand the kind of feelings Aziraphale's onscreen experiences evoke in so many of us. Heaven might not be real, but the feelings of "God is always watching" still stick with me today even though I no longer believe in God. I have entirely denounced Christianity because of my own personal experience, and I refuse to allow people to try and guilt me or shame me for trauma that I didn't ask for. I wasn't given a choice.

As a child I was told that God was real and always watching everything you do (just like Santa Claus) and can hear everything you say and knows everything you are thinking. Do you know what I learned to do in order to cope with this overwhelming and anxiety-inducing information as a small child? I learned to censor my thoughts. I never spoke up, and I have always felt like I was putting on a show for people because I had to be who I was told to be or I would get into trouble.

Aziraphale said "poverty is a virtue" during The Resurrectionists, and as someone who grew up in the Bible belt and went to private schools, I was taught this very same shit by the Catholic church. He learned in that very same episode that "poverty is a virtue" is actually a tool of oppression to keep the poor poor and the wealthy wealthy. I know we all watched the episode. He went into that episode believing what he said, but by the end of it he knew it was actually utter bullshit. Aziraphale is not ignorant. He's highly intelligent, and he has never been too proud to admit when he has been wrong. He accepts that the information he learned before is not matching up with reality.

And it's so obvious some of you have zero experience with that type of indoctrination because of how very little empathy you show Aziraphale for his "mistake" of "choosing Heaven over Crowley" and "making Crowley sad" so clearly Aziraphale must somehow be "abusive" and "manipulative" and "selfish" and "self-centered" because he didn't choose to run away with Crowley at the end of season two.

First of all.

FIRST OF ALL...

Aziraphale has a mind of his own.

Aziraphale is always going to try and do what is right.

Aziraphale is an angel. He's a being of love. And the reason he's so "bad" at being an angel is because he actually wants to protect humanity. He has always loved humanity. He repeatedly has to contend with what is "right" versus what is "good" and "wrong" versus "evil". Yeah, he has flaws. He's an angel, not a goddamn fucking saint. He has lived on Earth for more than 6,000 years. He has seen everything. He loves doing human things.

He's obsessed with magic. It makes him so happy. He's not very good at it...well not when he's trying to put on a show for Crowley.

He chose to learn French the hard way, so even though he knows every single language in the world, he chooses to be mediocre at French. Something that annoys and amuses Crowley at the same time.

He loves to dance even though angels aren't supposed to dance, and dancing with Crowley was what he wanted the most.

He owns a bookshop and refuses to sell any of his books because they are books he's had for as long as there have been books. He will chase customers away from his collection, and Crowley understands how much they mean to Aziraphale because he refuses to sell any when Aziraphale leaves him in charge.

He and Crowley have been speaking to each other in coded language for more than 6,000 years. They have to be very careful about what they say because Heaven and Hell are always watching.

Heaven has photographs of Crowley and Aziraphale sitting or standing together throughout history. Hell had one photo of Crowley and Aziraphale actually working together and it was Aziraphale's quick thinking and how good he actually is at sleight of hand tricks that managed to get that photo out of Furfur's hands so he wouldn't be able to turn Crowley over to the Dark Council.

Aziraphale saved Crowley from being taken to Hell again. He wasn't able to save Crowley from Hell in Edinburgh, but he sure as heck managed to save Crowley from Hell during WWII. He took Crowley to his bookshop and showed Crowley that he stole the picture from Furfur. He saved Crowley.

You get that, right?

Aziraphale SAVED Crowley.

People always talk about how it's "always Crowley saving Aziraphale" because apparently heroic acts are only heroic when they are grand gestures. The sleight of hand wasn't heroic at all, am I right? It wasn't sparkly and showy. It wasn't interesting enough, therefore not heroic. At least that's all I'm hearing when people start with their "blah Aziraphale deserves to suffer because I have no imagination or ability to understand the media in front of me blah", and all these reasons he deserves to suffer is because Crowley almost got hurt.

Aziraphale did that without flinching and I watch that part closely every single time. He's not scared for himself. He's scared for Crowley, and he managed to hold onto that photograph. He did not fail Crowley. He protected Crowley.

And so here's another thing that we like to point out. The way that Aziraphale, an angel who is effeminate and male presenting, an angel who is soft and full of love, an angel who is kind and forgiving because he has empathy and compassion, is somehow painted as abusive and manipulative. He's not violent, but he could easily fuck up your world. He doesn't use his powers. We have no idea how powerful he is because we only ever see him do small acts. He's used to hiding. It's the only way he has ever been able to protect Crowley.

And I'm not saying that Aziraphale has actually saved Crowley before means that Crowley hasn't also saved Aziraphale. Like, you get that those are not mutually exclusive and their relationship is not transactional, right? They have spent their entire existence protecting each other but never actually getting to be together because Heaven and Hell are always watching.

Yeah, Crowley fell. We all know this. We are aware of this. He was the serpent of Eden. He gave humanity the knowledge of free will.

But what we don't talk about is what Aziraphale gave humanity.

What did he give them?

We all know what it is!

Let's say it together!

He gave Adam and Eve his flaming sword because it was dangerous outside the garden and Eve was pregnant and she was already having a really bad day. He showed them compassion and gave them his extremely powerful angelic weapon so they would stand a chance on the outside of the garden. He gave humanity the gift of compassion. It's just unfortunate that his flaming sword became a weapon of War.

And then what did he do after that?

Ooooh, yeah, that's right.

God asked him about it and he straight up lied to her and pretended he had no idea where he'd managed to misplace it. She didn't say anything after that. He told Crowley the truth though. He told Crowley the truth even though Crowley fell.

Yeah, we know Aziraphale has done some really fucking questionable things. He and Crowley both suck at passing for human in front of observant people like Nina. They're not human. They are still learning, but they managed to experience human history together despite being on opposite sides and their experiences with humanity are what has shaped them into the compassionate and loving duo they are now. One of them is not better from the other.

This, my friends, is what we call meeting in the middle. It's why shades of gray is so important. Aziraphale constantly breaks the rules. Crowley refused to play by Heaven's rules. It's the reason he fell. He doesn't play by Hell's rules either. These two dorks figured out how to cancel each others' miracles out throughout human history in order to have more time learning about humanity and each other because working all day every day sucks when there are so many new things to learn and experience with the people you love.

We know Crowley and Aziraphale both love each other. Neither of them are good at hiding the hearts stars in their eyes.

But here's what's really fucking annoying about the Aziraphale hate.

Aziraphale was already crying when Crowley grabbed him and kissed him. Aziraphale is trying so very hard to do the right thing. He loves Crowley. He does. But he also has a duty to humanity, and he has taken that job very seriously since the creation of Adam and Eve. He sent them out into the world with a flaming sword so they would have a chance at surviving beyond the walls of the garden.

And he knows that Something Terrible is going to happen and he spent all of second season trying to figure out what that Something Terrible was while trying to have some sort of more honest and open relationship with Crowley, but again, they aren't human, they are a demon and an angel approaching life from opposite sides who met in the middle and fell in love with humanity together.

He wants more than anything to tell Crowley how he feels about him, but he wants to do something grand for Crowley because Crowley has always been grand and dramatic and sexy and a little bit scary.

Crowley is impulsive and has a temper and sometimes says the wrong thing but he has always trusted Aziraphale because Aziraphale gave him a chance even after he fell. Aziraphale chose to shelter him instead of smiting him while they stood on top of that wall. He knew he was supposed to kill Crowley, but oops, he gave his sword away to the humans so he didn't really have anything to kill him with and Crowley is the one who created nebulas. The Pillars of Creation is Crowley's work and Aziraphale was there to witness that, but he watched Crowley more than he watched the nebula. He witnessed the pure joy on Crowley's face when he said "let there be light" as a nebula full of colors exploded before their eyes. He was fascinated by Crowley.

But Aziraphale is going back to Heaven even though he has made it perfectly clear he absolutely has no desire to go back to Heaven. He told the Metatron this during their conversation. He spoke these words out loud. They exist.

But then The Metatron said this....

The Metatron. The very same angel who told Aziraphale in season one "to speak to me is to speak to the Almighty." He's the boss. He's the big guy. He's used to existing as a giant head and he had to give himself a body so he wouldn't stand out on Earth. And he knows that Aziraphale and Crowley have been working together since the beginning. He knows they worked together to prevent Armageddon in season one, and now he's made it clear he knows they were working together long before that. And let's face it, Aziraphale really wants to know what this Something Terrible is that Gabriel is running from so he can try to prevent it from happening.

It makes sense that he would want to take Crowley to Heaven with him because he would be able to keep Hell from getting their hands on him again. Aziraphale hates it in Heaven. He doesn't want to go, but Something Terrible is happening and Metatron isn't taking no for an answer, and maybe Heaven won't be so bad if Crowley is there with him. At least they can fix Heaven together.

But Crowley can't go back. We all get that. We don't blame him for saying no. It doesn't change anything.

Something Terrible is about to happen and Aziraphale has to figure out what it is. He wants to change Heaven.

He is fully aware that Heaven sucks. He still has faith in God. His faith isn't in Heaven. He deserted his platoon in season one and threw himself back to Earth so he could figure out how to make sure the war between Heaven and Hell doesn't happen.

But see, here's the thing. Heaven is at the top. Heaven has all the resources. Heaven is responsible for the creation of Hell. Heaven is empty and Hell is overpopulated. Aziraphale knows this. Crowley knows this. It's obvious every time we see either place. Both sides are desperate to go to war and will not hesitate to destroy humanity in the process. This is the opposite of what Crowley and Aziraphale want for humanity. If anyone can change Heaven, it's Aziraphale. He's the only one up there who gives a shit about humanity as far as we know. No one else is going to speak on humanity's behalf.

Some of us are so busy getting mad at Aziraphale for going back to Heaven and giving Crowley a Big Sad. Newsflash: Crowley is not the main character of Good Omens. Aziraphale and Crowley are equals, yet we wanna hold Aziraphale to higher standards because he's an angel, and when he makes mistakes it's proof that he's the bad guy.

Holy mother of all things that trigger my religious trauma, let me tell you. I spent my entire life hating myself every time I made mistakes. I've had to teach myself that just because I mess up sometimes doesn't mean I'm bad. It means I'm human. I still struggle with it. I probably always will. So when you say that Aziraphale deserves to be punished for breaking Crowley's heart, you not only ignore that Aziraphale's heart is also broken, you're saying he deserves to be punished for doing what he thinks is right.

Wanting to change Heaven for the better is not a bad thing.

And some of y'all wanna see him suffer for going back into the lion's den that is Heaven, knowing that he is already an outcast, that they have already tried to kill him once, knowing that he is a deserter, that he has been lying to Heaven about a lot of things, and you still think he's blinded by Heaven? You think he's just so naive and that's the only reason he's going back. He doesn't show his emotions the same way Crowley does so it means he doesn't care as much. He's expected to consider Crowley's feelings over his own when making choices. Like holy shit if all of that hasn't defined my experience as a woman with religious trauma in this fucking society. He's expected to be subservient to Crowley and if he doesn't do what Crowley wants then he's being unreasonable and illogical.

What the actual fuck, y'all.

Like seriously.

I'm sick of this bullshit. I had to step away from this fandom because of how toxic some people in this fandom are. It's not chasing me away, but the fact that I chose to hang out in a a more toxic fandom that is already notorious for being really toxic over a fandom that claims to be more open-minded and welcoming should probably tell you something.

It gave me a lot of perspective, and yeah, I'm still gonna speak up against the bullshit Aziraphale hate.

People are entitled to their opinions, but the Aziraphale hate isn't an opinion. It's just ableist, misogynistic garbage. At this point we all know y'all say these extreme things about Aziraphale because y'all get more joy out of the harm and alienation it is causing others.

Keep being loudly wrong, but if you think I'm not entitled to challenge shitty-ass, harmful, hateful discourse, bite my ass.

I'm not the one who lost the plot in this fandom.

[thousandyearphantombunker]

The Owl House Critical Post, scroll away now I don't know if I am being too harsh in this post but I wrote it anyway so if you don't wanna read something potentially upsetting this is a warning (to those who decide to read please tell me if I'm being too harsh)

I remember initially hating how the show handled its villains, they all felt like jokes, they never felt like threats or like they provided a meaningful challenges for the main cast, they never had any real depth or complexity. but i bit my tongue, I was told that I was basically a dumbass for complaining that Bump openly breaks a law that's supposed to be punishable by death so that Luz could fulfill her witchy fantasy and that he wasn't arrested. the show could've had him make the multiclass student thing be something underground- boom it lets luz live out her fantasy but doesn't ignore what was established about the setting and creates potential stakes if these underground classes ever got discovered! That already made me angry but the cult thing is what I wanted to complain about- i only had basic ass knowledge about cults and TOH fails at portraying that crap, most people in the EC can just quit and do so in a way that makes it feel like they're just quitting a job, it doesn't feel like they fear losing their friends or sense belonging and community, they don't feel like they're anything but jokes. Leaving a cult is scary, often times cults will send their followers into the real world and set them up to have bad experiences so they'll come running back, they'll hire thugs to scare them into staying or position them in away so that they suffer (sending them out without money or the skills to survive), they humiliate those who begin to ask questions so that they stay in line. guilt tripping, putting members against each other, cutting off contact with the rest of the world! The show only adds the whole 'forced to fight on a mountain' thing for flavor! Everytime it brings up actual stuff cults do it feels like it's more for flavor than actually writing this topic with sensitivity- look at how they treat Lilith! Imo It feels like the show insulting people for ever trusting belos, treating them like they're braindead and could've just realized fairly easily that he was evil. It's the most egregious with hunter who was basically fucking born into the EC. the show is also pretty black and white, which is curious for a show that gets praise for its portrayal of religious trauma. You think the show would be more grey. I did deeper research into cults and just got SO tired of people talking about how good the show was at conveying such a heavy topic. The titan reveal also doesn't help- Luz is told by an all powerful deity that she is the chosen one basically and is told that old man is evil and needs to go down- isn't that the same justification that belos uses for his actions- not saying belos should've gotten redemption or forgiveness but this feels wrong. He deserved to die don't get me wrong but using this justification feels gross. What's even worse is that the titan made Philip's life harder on purpose- ah yeah that brainwashed cult victim would totally change his mind especially if you make his life harder- yeah I would've preferred if belos was depicted in a flashback just having a bad time on the boiling isles and cherry picked those bad experiences to justify his actions. Also I hate that the show just writes belos off as greedy and glory seeking when it could've conveyed a message about how people can get absolutely get warped by religious dogma. I do wonder though if I'm being too harsh because TOH is for kids and I was told it would be hard to portray this stuff in a way kids could understand. I can come up with ways to make the breaking the law openly thing less egregious but I am struggling to think of ways the show could have handled the cult thing, I am aware that maybe I'm accidentally saying stuff that is kind of bad faith but this is my truth. I feel like TOH wasn't good at villains and it sure as hell didn't write cults well

[expectopatronum18]

One thing the fandom does tht annoys the absolute crap out of me is making Dumbledore out to be this evil villain manipulating kids into fighting in a war and inturn being the cause of all their losses and resultant trauma. He did what he did in the circumstance of a war. And thts still saying something coz hp paints and incredibly black and white picture of war and good vs evil in general

Ofc he's not going to be completely morally right, but given tht the choices r risking losing the war or being morally wrong, u can see the obvious pick.

He didn't manipulate anyone into joining the war, the marauders and lily volunteered(and we hv no evidence of forced conscription in the wizarding world). It's a choice they made right after school and they deserve all the credit for it without reducing it to 'dumbledore raised a child army'. He even offered to be james's secret keeper, but james chose his friends instead, thts not on dumbledore. Seems lyk fandom has a real problem with grasping the concept of characters making their choices without being forced into it, whether good or bad. Even in Harry's era the kids called themselves 'dumbledore's army' and he had nothing to do with it, he even took the fall for their foolishness and saved them from being expelled.

Yes, he manipulated Snape into becoming a double agent early on (he wud hv protected the Potters anyways) but srsly, look at the choices in front of him, what is he supposed to prioritise? a) having a spy in voldemort's circle and gaining information tht cud save countless lives, b) sm death eater crying abt saving only the muggleborn he loves in exchange for her infant son. Also he might hv been manipulated in the very beginning, but adult Snape chose to continue in this role (as shown by the yule ball scene in the Prince's Tale), reducing tht to 'dumbledore manipulated poor, helpless uwu Snape' cheapens his redemption.

Now, with regards to raising Harry lyk a pig for slaughter....what other choice did he have? Smother baby Harry coz he was marked for death? It's definitely his least prettiest move, but what wud u choose btw saving the world and saving one kid? Also he hardly does it out of spite, he really did love Harry, which is y he doesn't tell him about the contents of the prophecy earlier.

Ultimately, he was a very flawed man, but he did what he had to do to win the war and 90% of the cast would be dead without him. He is a complex, flawed, and much more interesting character character without being reduced to evil incarnate, so y bother?

[myfandomrealitea]

honestly, I’m really happy that you made that “we need to be allowed to be free from politics in fandom” post. And I’m really happy that it made some people angry.

Because you’re right. I’m a living example- I’m a person who just feels so much guilt if they don’t participate in this ritual of self-sacrifice in the way of helping others. And I feel like tumblr activism has come to a point where it’s not even about helping each other or mutual aid, it’s about guilt-tripping people and saying “well, you wouldn’t want to be Mr evil terrible guy, right? Right? So signal boost this! Or else you’re literally an evil transphobic homophobic racist Zionist fascist bigot”

we all have to be selfish sometimes. We have to. Selfishness is inherently neutral and we need it to survive. I’m a real example of what happens when a person tries to live a life without selfishness- guess what, I’m the worlds biggest doormat and I’m basically miserable because I’m too afraid to tell people that I just can’t do it anymore.

I’m a person who needs help right now. I’m a person who needs assistance right now. But I don’t think any of them really care. They just want someone to make into their strawman. The world isn’t black and white like that, though

The majority of Tumblr activism isn't about helping other people.

Its about giving people an outlet for their own emotions, and showing other people you're not a bad person. I have no doubt a lot of the people falling victim to this actually believe they're helping, and likely have good intentions, but realistically I see so many people just using "activism" to lash out at others and moral grandstand.

Weaponizing activism blatantly defeats the purpose of activism. There's no standard to the people who need help, and just because someone can't necessarily be an extreme activist doesn't void them from being the recipient of it.

I hope you get the help and respite you need and if I can help you or facilitate finding people to help you I'm happy to. I can also gather some resources for self-help and methods to reduce stress if those are beneficial.

And remember:

Fandom is not inherently political.

The point of activism is to make change, not to get notes on a post.

Those with broken legs cannot run. Don't cripple yourself trying to help others.

[petulant-plants]

I feel like a see a lot of speculation about ‘the Sun King and The Lady are the real bad guys of the story’ and ‘maybe Sarcean wasn’t so bad after all’ kind of stuff…

And I think there is definitely more going on between them that makes the story less light vs dark, black vs white. But I also think that the overall story kind of plays with nature vs. nurture (or circumstance) and that in one context someone can do “evil” and in another do “good”. I don’t think it’s bad thing if Sarcean was a bad guy who did bad things, like making and using the collar, like killing all those people. Of course I believe it’s more nuanced than a black and white, light and dark, good and bad. But just because there’s nuance doesn’t mean the rolls flip and that secretly the whole time the light were the real bad guys and the dark was fighting the good fight.

I feel like if that is the case then it might neglect all the inner turmoil the characters have had to go through to try and understand their rolls in this new old world. If Sarcean maybe actually had a point and was doing the right thing, then Will’s battle with himself and his desires doesn’t mean as much because he’s not actually fighting any dark impulses