#while we're getting it all out this has always been a fundamentally wrong claim on the c2 finale

[essektheylyss]

I am certain that this has been said before, by myself and others, but because we're talking about it, let's look at the Trent situation in some depth, shall we?

I will admit, I was among those who was of the opinion that there might be another arc of campaign 2 to deal with the Assembly, since they were positioned as the entity pulling strings in Wildemount, they had been tangentially associated earlier with a plot to release Tharizdun, and because they were of minor to major interest with regard to character backstories, not least with multiple members being involved in the Aeor arc (and when it was still believed that Veth might've had some relationship to Doolan Tversky). Nevertheless, in hindsight, I don't feel that there's any issue with the positioning of the Assembly by the end of the campaign. They are a problematic entity that continues to exist in the world as grounding, because such entities are not generally one-note villains to be killed and destroyed; they are generally systemic and entrenched, and require sustained and systematic collaboration to dismantle. The same can be said of the Clasp, or the Myriad. And indeed, Caleb will be focused on this dismantling for at least the next six years.

Looking at Trent in particular, though, requires considering Caleb's narrative arc in full, and in particular, the shift that he undergoes from the beginning to the end. He begins the campaign specifying that he is seeking to take down Trent, "among other things", which we know from his later wishes entails turning back time and undoing his parents' deaths—though, given he doesn't give details on the matter at the time, we can't say then whether or not his plan entailed attempting to leave the timeline unaltered, essentially leaving his younger self to succumb to the guilt and subsequent trauma of the Asylum. It's possible that he had considered that then, and it was simply a pragmatic attempt to preserve the timeline and prevent a paradox, but it's also possible that that element only came later, when Caleb found that he was capable of forgiving himself.

By the time he gets to the point of telling the whole group about his history, before they have dinner with Trent, he specifies that his intent was to atone, but "that idea has evolved quite a bit over time, and I'm not sure what the exact answer is. But I mean to atone." It is worth noting that in this conversation also is the exchange with Caduceus about the goal being no more kids on the pyre. This also only comes after the Nein have shifted from their early extreme murder hobo mercenary tendencies to a group with diplomatic ties who have already navigated a minimum of two governments to end a war, so their methods have changed and their options have expanded, not only in terms of their personal abilities but their social influence as well.

At this point, we know, he has not let go of the potential to turn back time—he admits to Essek later that he doesn't know what he would choose if the thing that he wanted was placed in front of him (incidentally, mere hours before it was). Which means that his idea of atonement has shifted in other ways. In that first conversation with Beau and Nott, Beau says that, "There are two options here: you can selfishly try and go after this guy for your own vendetta, or you can use your motives to keep others from getting hurt in a very similar way," and Caleb admits in response that both are appealing. We must infer then, based upon this information, that what has shifted over ninety episodes later in his idea of atonement is that he is no longer motivated by a selfish dedication to his personal vendetta.

In fact, he seems to slip back into that vendetta later, if not in the asylum (where it is unclear how much he is acting out of necessity than due to a regression, but I would suggest it is a bit of both) then when he attempts to convince the Nein and then Essek that they should invite Trent and the scourgers to join them in Aeor, in an effort to eliminate Trent beyond the view of the rest of the Assembly or the Empire. Even as they prepare to go to the asylum, he admits that he wants Trent dead for ruining his life, though only after extensive pressing from Veth as to whether he is avoiding confronting Trent out of fear, and he adds that he does not want to risk the rest of the Nein in the pursuit of it. I've argued previously that Caleb realized when Essek challenged him on it that he was willing to jeopardize their true mission—to prevent Cognouza from wreaking havoc on Exandria in Lucien's hands—in pursuit of this goal, and this was truly his final wake-up call about the dangers of the path he had been on.

The Assembly has a habit of distancing themselves from the responsibilities of their fellow members; the Assembly as a whole turned on Delilah the moment she ran afoul of the law, Ludinus and Vess both distanced themselves from Trent, and later Astrid distances herself from Ludinus, even though we know she is part of the reason he remained untouchable through the trials against Trent. When members are expelled or eliminated, they are framed as fringe criminals, whose actions and activities were unsanctioned by the Assembly and therefore beyond the control of the others, regardless of the truth of that.

Caleb recognizes that there is plenty of evidence to tie Trent's activities to the Assembly, but likely also understands that Trent will not be tried or convicted in death, and as such the scourger program will not come to the attention of the Empire's legal system if he takes revenge before he gets justice. And by this point, what he wants is justice, because only with justice can he prevent further harm. He admits to Essek that, "I know what it means to have other people complicate your desires and wishes," and frames this as not only a good thing, but indeed the only thing that might save either of them. He ultimately neither kills Trent nor returns to the past, and this is what allows him to move forward out from under the weight of his sins and sorrows.

So by the end of the campaign, what Caleb has attained is this: a reorientation of his priorities, a commitment to his own future, and the means to not only gain justice for himself but to ensure that what happened to him will not happen, in this manner at least, again in a manner that is sanctioned by the Assembly.

To argue that the "Assembly plot" was not wrapped up by the end of campaign 2 is to fundamentally misunderstand both the nature of the campaign, which was one driven by character interests and histories rather than external plot, and to additionally further misinterpret Caleb's actual goals. There was no Assembly plot in campaign 2; there was only Caleb's plot. The end state of that plot is determined not by the elimination of one unchanging villain (though it does, technically speaking, still satisfy that requirement, the Solstice blast notwithstanding), but by reaching a point at which Caleb can begin to recognize that he can live with himself and the efforts he is undertaking—but also, more fundamentally, to recognize that he can live.

[mallloryrowinski]

Throw rocks at me but holding women accountable for their actions and decisions is an important part of growing class consciousness. I'm not saying let's all go out and victim blame, but a lot of the discourse on here seems to be focused on the "women can do no wrong" principle, which is flawed.

We all agree that going up to a victim of domestic violence and saying "See? It's your fault because you didn't leave" is absolute nonsense and only protects the abuser.

However, (hypothetical scenario) if I move in with a man and notice that my dogs start acting strangely around him—showing signs of nervousness or fear—but I do nothing about it, and one day he kills them, I’ve failed my dogs. I had a responsibility, as their owner, to protect them, and despite noticing their discomfort, I ignored it. In this case, I didn’t cause the harm, but I played a role in failing to prevent it when warning signs were there.

If a mother learns that her husband or partner is abusing her child and does nothing about it—perhaps even covers for him—she, too, is complicit. While dynamics become more complex if he’s abusive to her as well, she still has a fundamental responsibility to protect her children. No, it is not her fault that her children are being abused; that blame lies solely with the abuser. But as the adult responsible for their safety, she has a duty to act.

Understanding this distinction between moral and practical responsibility is crucial. We’re not trying to blame women who’ve been manipulated or controlled, but when someone becomes aware of what’s happening and has the chance to make choices, there are certain responsibilities that come with that, even if things are messy or abusive. Recognizing this need for accountability is about empowering all women, fostering solidarity, and collectively breaking free from systems that demand our silence, tolerance, or complicity.

Imagine you're dating a guy and suddenly find out he's one of the 51 men on trial for the rape of a woman. There are three women in France right now who have their partners on trial for Gisèle Pelicot's rape who actively take their partner's side and defend him. An ex-wife told the court she wants to get back together with her ex-husband, who claims he didn't rape Gisèle, because “I didn’t set out from my house saying: ‘I’m going to rape someone. I don’t understand how she didn’t feel anything, didn’t realise.”. This woman's behavior is a stab in the back to a rape victim; When women defend male perpetrators, it's a signal to survivors that justice and solidarity are conditional. This betrayal compounds harm, leaving victims isolated and reinforcing a culture of silence and impunity for male violence. And also assures men everywhere that no matter how horrible you are and what crimes you commit, there's always going to be a woman ready to take your side (something they'd never do for us).

Of course, patriarchy and conditioning play a big part here, teaching women to internalize subordination, which can mean defending or excusing harmful behavior. This conditioning and the socialization we go through more or less since the moment we're born is the reason why women get trapped in these cycles of complicity. But these do not erase individual responsibility! Real change will mean balancing accountability with real support to help women unlearn and resist these harmful norms.

Or take a woman who actively recruits girls into the sex industry. Perhaps she was groomed herself, conditioned to see exploitation as normal, or even to believe that she was “helping” others survive. While her circumstances may explain her behavior, the harm she causes cannot be ignored. Her actions reinforce the broader system of exploitation and make it easier for others to justify that abuse as just another “choice” rather than exploitation. Her complicity not only harms the women she recruits but supports the larger, patriarchal system that profits from this exploitation.

Individual acts of complicity also reinforce structural patriarchy, delaying collective liberation for all women. When women protect male abusers or uphold harmful systems, they inadvertently strengthen the very structures that oppress us. There's a mutual responsibility women hold toward each other as part of a broader movement for liberation. Holding one another accountable is about solidarity, empowering women to confront patriarchal norms together.

This isn't about dividing women or blaming them for patriarchy; it's about helping each other break free from roles that keep all of us oppressed. Accountability, paired with solidarity challenges not only individual acts of harm but the structural forces that keep these cycles in place.

[bestworstcase]

Something about redemption is how some mistake humanizing people who've done some damn bad things (slavers, abusers, the worst you can imagine). That is, they might change but for now we're getting into the head of who has been framed by the show as "the worst." A descenter claimed that it's because we're tired of the news humanizing monsters and letting them get away with awful crimes, especially when they're people in power who'd get far more than a slap on the wrist otherwise. 1/

2/ Sorry if that sounded too vague. It's just a thought. We seem to like uncomplicated, easy-to-hate villains because we desire catharsis we never get in real life. Villains who are shown to be human in tandem with being despicable seem to feel like it's Fox News trying to make a martyr out of a monster.

it’s the christian hegemony

um my feelings on ‘redemption’ are pretty negative because conceptually it centers forgiveness as the mechanism for emotional and moral change (and in fiction very often skips over the actual. changing. to go straight to the absolution-through-forgiveness and gag if i wanted to read a morality play i would just read a morality play you feel me?)—ANYWAY

the thing about having a problem with news stories “humanizing monsters” is that the. the monsters in question ARE, in fact, human; human beings who chose to do terrible, depraved, repulsive things yes but to deny the humanity of evil people is to suggest that humans don’t have the capacity for evil, which we do. every person on this planet has the possibility of evil inside them and it doesn’t do anyone any favors to pretend otherwise. and while there is a legitimate and very widespread problem with human interest pieces and basic empathy being weaponized in a propagandistic fashion, the issue is not “humanizing monsters” it is entrenched systemic and personal bigotry that affords humanity only to members of the hegemonic classes. gkdhshk we fix it by challenging the dehumanization of marginalized victims, demanding empathy and acknowledgment of personhood for the people harmed by this, not by trying to expand the categories of people who don’t get to be human.

(also frankly a society that can’t hold someone accountable for evil acts without stripping away their humanity first is a society that is deeply, deeply sick.)

as it pertains to fiction and fandom redemption arc #discourse the whole discussion inevitably plays out like this:

AGAINST: this character did horrible things and is irredeemable! 😡 how can you even suggest letting them off the hook?!

FOR: but this character has suffered so much 🥺 don’t they deserve forgiveness?

AGAINST: no!! fuck this character! they deserve to be punished for what they did! [optional: insert unhinged revenge fantasy]

FOR: but this character’s past suffering is already punishment enough! 🥺 they deserve a chance to heal

AGAINST: what about all the people they hurt, huh? HUH? why should those people have to forgive this character just because this character had a bad life?

FOR: but this character just needs love and then they can be a better person 🥺

on and on and on. in every fandom. about every character. even the laundry list of irredeemable wrongs the “against” side always comes out with sooner or later tends to sound the same. eventually someone on the “for” team will bring up zuko and everyone against will produce a list of all the reasons this character isn’t like zuko and could never be zuko. kshfbsh fundamentally both sides of this argument agree that forgiveness is earned through punishment/suffering and the point of argument is always, always whether the villainous character has been sufficiently punished.

fun game: every time you encounter redemption arc discourse—whether for or against—start mentally replacing “redemption” and “forgiven” with the phrase “try to become a better person.” like: does cinder fall deserve redemption? does she deserve to try to become a better person?

see how that changes the meaning of the question? how it reframes the discussion such that the villainous character is no longer a passive receptacle for redemption or punishment or forgiveness but an active participant in their own character development? and how by focusing on the agency of the villainous character we place the onus for moral change on them rather than on the heroes?

does cinder fall deserve to be forgiven WHO CARES WHY DOES IT MATTER—but if she wants to do better? if she decides to crawl out of the darkness she’s burrowed herself into, what does that look like? what does she do? how can she atone for the terrible things she did? how do her changing goals and different choices shape the world she lives in and what do the other characters do in reaction to that? what does healing mean to her? if the possibility of her joining the heroes arises, how do the characters navigate that situation and the countless fraught, painful, contradictory emotions that it’s bound to inspire? like—hfbfks i’m using cinder as an example here because she’s the locus of most of the redemption discourse happening in the rwby fandom, but these are general questions. fundamentally i just don’t care about the bizarre moral calculus of whether a character’s personal suffering does or doesn’t outweigh their wrongdoing and entitle them to forgiveness.

tbh personally i don’t—i never have—find any catharsis in uncomplicated evil villains; like, they can be really FUN? love a character who’s just a complete fucking shitheel for no reason. and it can also be very satisfying to watch heroic characters defeat them, but for me that satisfaction is no different from the satisfaction of watching a character overcome any serious obstacle. like, uh—i got the same sense of satisfaction out of jaune grieving in front of pyrrha’s memorial as i did out of blake and yang taking adam down, you know? it’s about the culmination of the emotional arc, irrespective of whether there’s a bad guy to defeat or not.

(and then there’s also the secondary issue a lot of stories have of like, is this actually an uncomplicated evil monster or is this a character who challenges a legitimately bad status quo but the story is written by neoliberals so they’re also going to like shoot a baby or something so the audience will know that challenging the status quo is something only #evil people do?—or the subtler but no less obnoxious variant of is this actually an uncomplicated evil monster or is this just some guy who has been designated #evil for having goals that don’t align with what the protagonists want? nothing will get me to sympathize with a villain faster than a narrative double standard or a narrative that is constructing a cartoonishly evil strawman because it wants to wibble about how challenging systemic evil is even worse than systemic evil.)

hdjfhdjs not to say that people don’t or can’t feel catharsis over seeing villains get their comeuppance because plenty of folks do! it’s just a very big Can’t Relate thing for me haha

i just go wild for characters who are interesting, and what interests me is emotional complexity and dynamic character development. morality doesn’t really… come into it except for characters who have fraught relationships with their own morality, in which case the fraught internal conflict is what interests me irrespective of the actual moral inclination of the character. (this is also part of why redemption discourse exasperates me SO much; all ethical bones i have to pick with redemption conceptually aside, making forgiveness the focal point and fulcrum of change just totally ignores all the interesting junk in favor of treating the character like a static object and it’s BORING.)