#they are morally complex and are neither entirely good nor bad

[dirtytransmasc]

mild rant, cause hotd TikTok is insufferable.

so I saw an edit, with the scene of Viserys on his death bed, calling Rhaenyra his only child...

these were some of the comments...

how dense do people have to be to say this shit, as if the abuse/neglect Aegon, Helaena, Aemond (and Dearon) faced, is the reason they are the way that they are????

aegon turned to his cups so young because he had to face the fact that his father didn't love him, his mother had... complicated feelings towards him (he was her first, born of marital rape that destroyed her life and childhood, and she loved him no doubt, but part of her hated what he represented in her life. all of which is Viserys and Otto's fault). not to mention the abuse he faced from Viserys and Otto (focus on Otto, cause he did what he wanted, since Viserys wasn't around enough to thoroughly abuse his son himself and wouldn't punish Otto for doing so). his drinking and need to self destruct to escape a life he doesn't want, turned him into the destructive, drunken bastard he is.

aemond was permanently maimed, an injury that very well could have killed him or hindered him greatly in life, and was ignored by his father, who then supported such an obvious lie instead of protecting his own son (aka, treating the greens and the blacks as equals and not playing favorites, they're aren't asking for miracles they asking for bare minimum). he suffered so greatly and his father couldn't give less of a shit. so on top of everything else, he had this anger boiling in his chest for years and years, stoked by his father's willing negligence. not to mention the fear it cause his mother (who was being manipulated by Otto) that Rhaenyra truly was a threat to his livelihood, which only targeted his anger.

Helaena, on a direct/surface level, was the best off, in terms of her father, but the ripple effect he caused on her life and those around her caused her to be married to her brother, who she didn't love, who didn't live her, and brought her suffering to some degree. it was the war Viserys practically created (tell me he didn't, I dare you) that sent her to madness (amongst other things *ahem* blood and cheese).

like, this man destroyed his children, directly or not, everything he did broke them down and apart, until he died, leaving them with a war that would end them all. his actions made them (Aegon and Aemond) into the people they were, but of course, that doesn't matter, apparently.

[magnificentwolfface]

Luke Castellan is one of the most compelling and tragic characters in the Percy Jackson series, embodying the blurred lines between hero and villain. To fully understand Luke, one must look beyond his actions and delve into his motivations, pain, and the circumstances that shaped him. Luke is neither entirely a bad guy nor a good guy—he is the product of his experiences, a person who sought justice in a deeply flawed system.

Luke’s Childhood and his roots of pain

Luke’s story begins with abandonment. His father, Hermes, largely ignored him, leaving Luke to navigate a world where monsters lurked around every corner, and he had no one to protect him. As a young boy, Luke craved his father’s acknowledgment and love. Hermes, the god of travelers and messengers, was distant, a stark reminder of the gods' inability—or unwillingness—to care for their mortal children.

This lack of connection was a crushing blow to Luke. He felt discarded and unimportant, a sentiment that grew into bitterness. Luke's anger wasn't just directed at Hermes but at the Olympian gods as a whole. The gods, with their immense power, seemed to shirk their responsibilities, leaving their children to fend for themselves in a world rife with dangers they themselves created. Luke’s pain was rooted in a sense of injustice: why were demigods forced to bear the burdens of their divine parents' legacies?

Thalia, Annabeth, and the concept of family

Luke found some solace in the makeshift family he created with Thalia and Annabeth. Their bond was forged in hardship, running from monsters and surviving in a hostile world. Luke became a protector and an older brother figure to Annabeth, who looked up to him as a source of strength. For Thalia, Luke was an equal, someone who shared her frustrations with the gods. Together, they dreamed of a world where demigods wouldn’t have to suffer, where they could be free from the constant threats posed by their divine parentage.

However, this sense of family was fragile. When Thalia sacrificed herself to save Luke and Annabeth, Luke felt the weight of guilt and failure. He believed he had let her down, further fueling his resentment toward the gods who had put them in such a position. Even with Annabeth by his side, Luke began to see their fight for survival as a losing battle. The gods had abandoned them, and he believed it was time for demigods to take matters into their own hands.

The betrayal and the role of Kronos

Luke’s decision to align with Kronos was not made lightly. It was born out of years of pain, frustration, and a desire to change the system. Luke saw Kronos not just as a way to overthrow the Olympians but as a chance to create a better world for demigods—a world where they wouldn't be pawns in the gods' games. In his eyes, the Olympians were tyrants who deserved to fall.

However, this alliance came at a cost. Kronos exploited Luke’s vulnerabilities, using his bitterness and hurt to manipulate him. While Luke believed he was fighting for justice, Kronos twisted his ideals, turning him into a weapon against the very people he once cared about. This is where Luke’s moral complexity shines: his intentions were noble, but his methods became increasingly destructive.

Luke's relationship with the gods

Luke’s anger toward the gods is understandable when viewed through the lens of his experiences. The gods often appeared indifferent to their children’s struggles, only intervening when it suited their own agendas. Camp Half-Blood, while a sanctuary, was also a reminder of this neglect—demigods were gathered there not out of love but because they were useful in the ongoing war against the Titans and other threats.

Hermes, in particular, bore the brunt of Luke’s anger. The lack of meaningful connection between father and son left a void that Luke tried to fill through rebellion. Hermes’s sorrow at Luke’s ultimate fate is a poignant reminder that the gods, despite their flaws, are not entirely emotionless. But their inability to bridge the gap between themselves and their children highlights a systemic failure.

Luke’s legacy as a tragic hero

Luke’s final act—sacrificing himself to defeat Kronos—cements his status as a tragic hero. He recognized the darkness he had allowed into his life and chose to atone for his mistakes. His death was not just a defeat for Kronos but a message to the gods: the system needed to change.

In many ways, Luke was a catalyst for change in the Percy Jackson universe. His rebellion forced the Olympians to confront their neglect of demigods and led to the promise of better treatment for their children. While his methods were flawed, Luke’s goals were rooted in a desire for justice and equality.

Neither good nor evil

Luke Castellan is not a villain in the traditional sense, nor is he a straightforward hero. He is a complex individual shaped by pain, love, and a desire to make the world better for demigods. His choices were driven by a mix of personal hurt and broader ideals, making him one of the most human characters in the series. Luke’s story serves as a reminder that the line between good and evil is often blurred and that understanding someone’s motivations is key to truly grasping their character.

There's a quote from Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo that I truly thinks fits Luke

“We are all someone’s monster.” — Leigh Bardugo, Six of Crows

Why it fits:

This quote directly captures Luke’s dual nature. To Annabeth and Percy, Luke became the embodiment of betrayal—a monster who chose to fight against his friends and align with Kronos. However, Luke’s perspective complicates this: he saw himself as a liberator, fighting against the true monsters—the Olympian gods. His actions were monstrous to some but justified to himself, emphasizing the subjectivity of morality and how heroes and villains are often determined by perspective.

This is a poignant choice if you want to emphasize Luke’s complex morality and how his legacy is shaped by both his noble intentions and his tragic choices.

[prongsandpetals]

no one asked for this but i’m saying it anyway because i am tired of this grandpa.

i dont hate jegulus or their shippers. personally, it doesnt make sense to me and my moral compass trickles into fiction meaning i dont have much interest in any of the slytherins. it could also be the fact that when people would create oc’s for james in their fics 10 yrs ago and made lily a raging bitch id be fighting them all in the comments- a fight or flight response that now has spread to jegulus- but thats neither here nor there. it brings people joy and they are fictional characters, and it doesnt physically hurt anyone!

but there is something to be said about some of the less savoury implications it has had on the fandom. it feels as though jily is in its own subfandom sort of pushed to the side, leaving two mlm ships to dominate. unfortunately a lottt of female characters have been forgotten or pushed aside because of this. a lot of people who joined the fandom not that long ago either dont know or forget that this fandom was not built on either wolfstar (who i love), or jegulus. yes, they popularised them, but this fandom has revolved around jily for over 10 years. not to mention many of these fics were written from lilys pov, meaning there was so much more depth put into the girls characters. to erase this is to erase the fandoms history.

the diversifying of characters is something amazing that has come more recently with the popularisation of the fandom and thats one of the good parts!! however if someone still views aaron taylor johnson as their james, that doesn’t make them a racist - the man has been james since at least 2006.

another (smaller) thing ive seen is someone will post a song or a photo and attribute it to a jily moment with harry that we can realistically see happening canonically and a comment will say something along the lines of: “this but its how james felt when regulus (insert something that did not happen here)” idk if its the autism but god those always get me a little bit, especially when it includes harry.

similarly, it feels as though people who ship jily are assumed to be less progressive. as a lesbian jily shipper i can’t disagree more. just because a ship is a straight ship does not make it a bad ship - i think we can all agree there are so many amazing LGBTQ+ ships out there now for everyone to enjoy. it does feel quite strange to me to place the two characters who created the child that there are seven books about into different ships, but people like them so its chill!! but when its just complete eradication or discontent with the canon ship… ;(

i also think that to have jegulus be endgame (except aus), a lot of james’s insanely important character traits literally HAVE to be erased. his hatred for death eaters and fight for justice, his unending loyalty to his friends - especially sirius- his black and white view on right and wrong, all of these traits become warped and stretched when it comes to jegulus. of course there isnt much canon to go off of so when people disregard it entirely i can understand it to a degree. but when you erase the important canon points we have on their characters, we are basically just creating oc’s with real characters names.

another thing that i find irksome is the fetishisation of these mlm ships- if youre gonna ship two men together do it right!! why are you calling regulus a cute little baby victim and james a big strong protector!! let them be complex and messy or dont do it at all! not to mention the erasure of a lot of wlw ships... lowkey gives girl who has gay boy best friend that thinks lesbians are weird… anyways off topic! ive heard people say its not fetishisation, its because the female characters arent written with depth- that’s why people read jegulus and wolfstar! okay? go give the girls some depth? regulus is a character we basically know nothing about canonically and youve turned him into a fully fleshed character who is now a lot of peoples favourite - it can be done with the girls too. there is such emphasis placed on wolfstar and jegulus for their deep, tragic love stories - and the marauders friendship in general. the gryffindor girls are right there. dorlene is right there. marylene is right there.

and if it truly werent fetishisation, i would argue that it can be a romanticisation of toxic relationships. a lot of people dislike jily because there is no “angst”. the angst is fighting in a war at 21 years old. the angst is lily and james’s differing blood statuses and the implications this has on their lives. the angst is having a prophecy hanging over their unborn child’s head that forces them into hiding. the angst is being betrayed by their best friend, leading them to sacrifice themselves for their family and the wizarding world. the angst is literally right there, but because their relationship is healthy and happy- one of the only things in their lives that is not full of pain- they are deemed boring.

again, i dont hate jegulus. i especially dont dislike anyone who likes the ship and gets something out of it. but there is so much change this fandom has gone through since their introduction and popularisation that has made interacting with the fandom as a whole almost unbearable sometimes, and thats what i do hate.

all in all, multishippers definitely have the most fun.

[kujakumai]

Personally, I agree that TKB has every right to feel anger and take action to prevent the tragedy of Kul Elna from happening ever again. But the second he says "I'm going to work with a demon to destroy the entire world" is when I put my foot down, because that makes him no better than what the ruling class did to him; it makes him worse because he's inflicting that to other innocent people. Neither Atem and TKB are completely correct or wrong, but the story siding with only Atem is morally iffy

-TKB isn't a real person independently arriving at moral actions, he is a character in a narrative whose structure and characters are consciously designed by human beings to tell a particular story

-Saying "Well, TKB was still evil because he wanted to destroy the world" is accepting the premise of the narrative and TKB's motivation as if it sprung forth from the ether, ever-extant in its present form and incapable of being written any other way

-The narrative of MW paints a portrait of a world that is visibly and systematically unjust and whose domestic and military power is derived from the literal death and exploitation of the poor; it then has a character, TKB, make very deliberate criticisms of this system, and puts them in direct contrast with Priest Set and Akenhadin's own ongoing corruption.

-Since again, this is a story being crafted with intent, this contrast directly leads audiences to conclude that TKB's criticism is valid, and the author intends us to reach this conclusion and has deliberately set up his commentary. Determining that TKB is right about the monarchy is the logical conclusion of the facts and narrative tools we as the audience are given.

-However, instead of leading us to a satisfying conclusion based on this setup, the story instead tacks on "...but he wants to destroy the world, so we can kill him!" and never meaningfully addresses the questions about good and evil or the nature of the throne, nor does Atem ever have to really face them. It disposes of TKB and quickly sets about putting a heroic coat of paint on a mostly unchanged Set and reducing everything to a quick and tidy good vs. evil shonen fight scene, contradictions be damned.

-The problem with this plot twist isn't fantasy-monarchism. It's that it is actively disorientating. We as readers have been told in loud, bold letters for over two dozen chapters what this story is about and what message it's trying to communicate (a very powerful one, based on how passionate people become about it!) and the story simply...dumps it all, and starts pretending to be a totally different story. Like none of that earlier stuff mattered and we should suddenly be content with power-of-friendshipping the bad guy into dust.

-Tongue-in-cheek declarations that "TKB was right!" aren't moral statements about TKB or Atem's actions, because Thief King and Atem aren't people, they are characters--a narrative tool the author is using to tell a story. And again: the narrative is telling us that TKB is right and the monarchy is troubled and unjust. Vocal declarations that Thief King was right are really an expression of disgust for a clumsy narrative betrayal. "MW told me this excellent story, got me invested, very deliberately set me up to draw these conclusions about the story it was telling and the message it wanted me to get...and then tacked on the ending for a completely different story that had nothing to do with any of that! This is bullshit!"

-If TKB were a mere generic evil, who intended to destroy the world for his own gain and had no compelling criticisms of the hero's world or complex tragedy, he wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting (see: the anime, which did almost exactly this), but I don't think people would be half as worked up about it. It would be neat, at least, because if everything is a fantasy good vs. fantasy evil from the start, then at very least the story would match its ending. No one would feel misled or disorientated.

-But the story did ask moral questions of our characters, and it did so carefully, deliberately, and with fireworks; it is therefore culpable for failing to even attempt to have them answer them.

-At the same time, the trope of the "rebel turned murderous extremist" is well-worn and troublesome. There are ten thousand examples. A villain who challenges the status quo, who takes issue with real problems, revolutionaries and rabble-rousers with righteous fury...but they want to, uh, kill innocent people also! for some reason! which is why our heroes (defenders of the status quo) need to get rid of them and we don't need to listen to what they are saying!

-Why does fiction so frequently depict people angry about real societal problems, and who act to change them, as people whose legitimate complaints are inexorably tainted by tacked-on inexplicable violence?

-Who benefits when fiction frequently conflates righteous criticism of injustice with supervillainy? When fiction conflates heroism with stalwart defense of the current system? How do we carry these narratives with us into the real world?

-You are criticizing Thief King as if he were a person. I'm not, and I'm not interested in doing that. I am criticizing the poor formulation of a story.

-anyway. TKB did nothing wrong

[live-from-flaturn]

Here's How Kim Theerapanyakul Qualifies as a Greek Tragic Hero:

I accidentally came up with this thesis statement while chatting with @shou-jpeg (as per usual) and they encouraged me to expand on it... so here's the outcome of my academic fandom ramblings!

From page 17 of “The Poetics of Aristotle”, as translated by S.H. Butcher:

1. A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan. It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation. It follows plainly… that the change of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us.

Layman's Translation: The perfect tragedy is complicated. No matter what story is used, the main emotional payout should be pity and fear for the Hero. In order to achieve this, you cannot simply punish a good man for no reason. Shock will not induce catharsis [emotional release].

2. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity or fear. 

Layman's Translation: A bad man cannot receive good fortune. That goes against the entire point of tragedy and will only frustrate the audience further. 

3. Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible.

Layman's Translation: The story cannot end with the downfall of an obvious villain. It satisfies the audience’s desire for justice but doesn’t leave them pitying the Hero or fearing the story’s eventual outcome. Once again, this ending would be void of catharsis/emotional release.

4. There remains, then, the character between these two extremes,—that of a man who is not eminently good and just,- yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,—a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families.

Layman's Translation: 

A good Tragic Hero must: 

Be royalty or nobility (he might also come from a well-known or wealthy family).

Be morally grey (if he is too Good or too Bad it will prevent the audience from projecting onto him and achieving catharsis). 

Cause his own downfall or “catastrophe” by making a mistake (an extension of his Hamartia, or “error” / ”inherent flaw”).

So how does Kim fulfill the requirements of a Tragic Hero?

He is from a well-known family and has an image to keep in check. Because of his role as Wik/an idol, Kim must present himself as a kind or at least pleasant person to the general public. Much like Oedipus or Electra, Kim has an outward persona whose specific responsibilities play a role in his fall to hubris. 

a. As Kimhan Theerapanyakul he is required to do his father’s bidding on some level. We know he’s at least somewhat beholden to Korn from the scene with Tankhun screaming, “I don’t know where they [Porsche and Chay] have gone!”

2. Does it get any more morally grey than a guy willing to kill a dozen men in cold blood (with his bare hands) to protect his pseudo-ex-boyfriend? Or date an underclassman fanboy only to commit minor felonies against him/his family? Or go against his father (rebellion against the family is a BIG no-no in Greek Tragedy!!!) and attempt to escape the fate of his bloodline? 

3. I doubt this part really needs explaining… But trying to protect Chay by lying to his face and destroying their relationship, only to turn around and beg for Chay’s forgiveness via blatant musical plagiarism, is probably Hamartia at its finest.

4. It's Kim! He is "a man who is not eminently good and just,- yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty". His greatest loss is brought about by his own poor decision making and furious need for freedom/independence. His determined self-flagellation only ever hurts the people around him while we as the audience scream for him to stop. He qualifies for the Tragic Sadboy Squad!

[empty-blog-for-lurking]

If youre ok w sharing then i would love to hear your thoughts on lotor........ Hes such a weird guy. Dissecting him like a frog

If i get hate for this, i am blaming you/j but in all honesty i apologize if this kinda messy, as i have said it has beem awhile since i saw any of the episodes about him. Most of it is my personal interpretation and opinions of his character-

First of all i personally hate both "L0tor is evil rapist imperialist who did not have a single redeemable quality" and "L0tor is uwu poor baby who did nothing wrong", because yeah he had good intentions and he seemed to genuinely love Alura and care for Alteans but also he very much did do a lot of things Wrong. I am pretty sure a lot of his actions fall into category of Very Wrong

Lot0r to me is an absolute control freak, he has to be 10 steps ahead of everyone, he needs to be control of the situation no matter what. Whether it be through a silver tongue or by his blade (see N@rti's death, him vs White Lion). This is as much as a ruthless strategy as it is a trauma response. Being raised under Z@rkon, a father who only saw him as inferior half-bred, he had to learn survivor tactics. He will do anything to survive whether it be beg, lie, manipulate, and kill. He is a survivor of some genuinely godawful abuse he suffered for 10,000 years, combined with racism he suffered for being half altean

However this need to be in control extends to his allies and people he cares about. I am sure Lotor may have loved Alura, it doesnt change the fact that he very much abused her trust. Their entire relationship was based on a lie. He knew Alteans were still alive and not only did he not tell Alura about it he leaned into the "last survivors of Altea" for their relationship, which is why it was doomed since the beginning. And if it had not been this, then it would have been something else. Cause lying and manipulation are very much core of his character, that is how we are introduced to him

Like i see people going "Oh Lot0r could have been good if he had therapy and a hug", and i am not really not sure about it, cause like would he? Would he choose to be vulnerable and actually let his feelings out and be truthful in a an unbiased reliable way that will neither serve him in any way nor make him look better nor is a part of some machivilian scheme he cooked up because he doesnt trust the therapist he is paying? No

And thing is he does desire connection. He looks for connection in people who are similar to him. Half galran, altean survivors, Alura these are the people who he chose to get close to. He looks for similarities, people he can relate to, people who he sees as like him, people who he thinks can give him a sense of belonging. He is deeply lonely. However his desperation for control, absolute mistrust in anyone and everyone, and his inability to be actually honest dooms any relationship he'll ever have

Also this is probably just me, but for someone who is this morally complex character he has tendency to see things in black and white? Like it is His dad and empire= bad, alteans=good. He idolizes Altea to the point of seeing it as an Utopia, and this ideal was more important to him than any Alteans who are alive and with him. I also cant remember him ever caring about someone outside of the Dichotomy. Like at most i remember is after he became the emperor Lance pointing out how other planets need to be freed and he just brushed it off

Overall he gives me the "smart people dont always make good decisions, but they are good at justifying their bad ones" vibes. We dont know exactly why he decided to use alteans as batteries but i am choosing to go with my interpretation- "Lottor saw something fucked up in that future showing space whale thingy, decided the only way to solve was altean batteries except in true self fulfilling prophecy greek tragedy way it only made things worse and started a series of event that will cause the thing he saw causing real trouble a few years after his death.

Another thing! I think it should have been him being the focus of Evil Altean episode instead of A//ura. I hate that episode and everything it stands for but like if there Had to be an evil alteans episode then it should be around someone who is you know? Obsessed with Altean culture? Is big on control and manipulation? Is more geared towards big picture and "greater good" over individual? Is worried about turning into just like his galran father and so desperately wants to connect to his idealized version of his altean mother? Yeah

[seriousbrat]

Oh no I don’t think it was made with the intent to stalk anyone, but I (personally) think the fact that it shows everyone’s location at all times without their knowledge to be a privacy violation (like personally I would not want to be on that map lol, it depends person to person but I think the fact that some would not want to be apart of it is important). What I mean by what it says about their character is that I think it shows that they feel entitled to a certain extent to feel like that was acceptable.

Personally I think this trait would manifest in a lot of teens (Harry, Fred and George don’t seem to think much of it) but I still find it interesting and think it’s under utilized

It is an interesting question! And not one that I'd ever given much thought (obviously haha.) Also dw I didn't think you were saying they made the map to stalk people, I understood your point!

I mean, that they were entitled... of course they were! Teen James is pretty much the personification of entitlement, and so is Sirius in many ways.

I also think it goes without saying that many people would not want to be on the map. Snape, first and foremost. And for good reason. But also if you think about it, neither would Filch or other members of staff because it means they wouldn't be able to catch the Marauders so easily. While I feel a bit sorry for Snape wrt the trouble the map probably caused for him, I can't bring myself to feel overly sorry for Filch haha. Police probably don't want to show up on those apps that track radar detectors/cameras/control points but personally I don't entirely see those apps as a bad thing. (even though I'm obv against speeding. in fact I hate all vehicles lol)

I agree that it's just not something an average teen would think about-- and I also think our ideas around privacy and what it means to us, and to society, have developed and become a great deal more complex since HP was written. Because these days it's more of an issue than ever.

Anyway, all in all-- I guess I think that yes technically it's not a great thing to do, but in the context of everything else the marauders did it just feels like such a non-issue to me haha I'll be honest. It's a privacy violation objectively, but so is idk Harry spying on people with the invisibility cloak. Like... I'm sorry and idk what this says about me but I just can't make myself care about this on a moral level jgjhjhg. It's 'wrong' but on a level that to me feels like a petty crime. Basically everything else the marauders did at that age seems so much worse.

edit-- just to be clear, I don't mean that I don't care what you have to say!! I've just reread this reply and I think it comes across that way a bit rip, sorry. I think it's an interesting discussion, but I was just trying to express why personally it doesn't really bother me nor really affect how I view the characters that much.

[haloguyfttp]

I was going back and just watching some WuWa stuff from launch and like... I know it's been almost a year now since launch, and he's never even been mentioned since 1.0, but watching the release trailer and seeing him again?

I am STILL coping that Geshu Lin becomes playable because he's so fucking cool. Like they've left just enough to hint that he's still alive somewhere because as far as I know they've never made a definitive confirmation of him actually dying even if his last action was a fight he never returned from. The rest of this is a ramble about what I like about him so uh, yeah

I just fuckin love his character. His design is simple and badass (the Tacet Mark being on his neck like a fatal wound omg), his personality is so cool and perfect for a conflicting sort of neither good nor evil, being perfect for a war-torn shithole. Like if there's one thing I don't really like about post 1.0 story it's that you can easily forget this is a post-apocalyptic world. Geshu Lin was a powerful fighter and general stuck fighting an endless war, and him being this ultimate warrior who never retreats could have made him an ideal general, but his complete and utter belief that he MUST win just costing endless lives as he's trapped in this cycle where he can't retreat so the only way out of this nightmare is through but he just isn't strong enough so he eventually fails is just...

I guess what I like most is that he's made of the generic shonen protagonist qualities of bravery, strength, dedication, focus etc. and like, those qualities in a vacuum are great but here? When he keeps fighting but each fight costs so many lives? When getting back up for another round means dragging so many with you back into hell knowing full well few if any of you will return home? All of a sudden those desirable traits become flaws until the very end where even after (seemingly yes I'm still coping) giving his life for this very cause, now he's regarded not as a hero who held back the endless tide with his army and sword, but as a blind general who threw oceans of bodies including his own into war and gained barely anything in return. And yeah it's harsh but as Jiyan would prove, he could've likely held the TDs back perhaps even better and with less casualties if he had been more strategic, but at the same time he did ultimately spend his entire life and "death" fighting the unending horde so it's not like he maliciously wasted lives or anything but he did ultimately tell countless people to march to their deaths and... god I love that bit of moral complexity.

It's been a while so I may be missing some bits about his character but anyway yeah, I want him playable so bad. Also he's hot af but that's not important rn

[wellofdean]

Such a good article:

When I work with younger writers, I am frequently amazed by how quickly peer feedback sessions turn into a process of identifying which characters did or said insensitive things. Sometimes the writers rush to defend the character, but often they apologize shamefacedly for their own blind spot, and the discussion swerves into how to fix the morals of the piece. The suggestion that the values of a character can be neither the values of the writer, nor the entire point of the piece, seems more and more surprising — and apt to trigger discomfort. While I typically share the progressive political views of my students, I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity. They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold. The result is that, in a moment in which our world has never felt so fast-changing and bewildering, our stories are getting simpler, less nuanced and less able to engage with the realities through which we’re living.

Good stories give us moral clarity by allowing us to process complexity, not by spelling it out, and reading this really interesting article, I can't help thinking of the contrast between the operatic and somehow brain-melting nature of the romance in Supernatural, which was always clear and present, even if it was complicated, subterranean and interdicted, vs the simple, unimpeachable simplicity of something like 9-1-1, which ok, it's clear, uncomplicated queer representation and that is nice! Yes! Sure. Ok. But for me? It cannot hold a candle to the 12 years of highly charged yearning that took place on a show that some members of the fandom still decry as homophobic and accuse of queerbaiting its audience on a regular basis.

For the record, I think it did neither! It told a complex, queer story that required its audience to think, feel and empathize with its characters. It involved me in ways that something like 9-1-1 simply does not, because it ASKED something of me as a viewer.

I'd say the same of about the deep seam of misogyny that runs through Supernatural, and the way the show went from replicating it, sometimes unconsciously, to consciously depicting it as something killing that separates our beloved characters from every softer, consoling feeling, and every authentic desire they have. Is that really 'misogyny', or is it a story that has some legitmate real estate in something that is good for a world without gender hierarchy? Again, it asks me to process it and decide.

Even with the charge of racism, which is, I would say, the most legitimate criticism of Supernatural, the way race was treated carelessly and sometimes in very predictably ugly ways on Supernatural prompts us all to reflect on it -- to call it out and see how unacceptable it is. Is art that shows us our own faces in the mirror bad art, or is it useful to us? There is a difference between moral clarity and moral simplicity.

Supernatural is a genuinely interesting cultural artifact in this regard -- it grew up with us into our present, and it's still going someplace. I think it does teach us moral lessons, particularly in the way it centres non-compliance with hegemony and authentic love of all kinds as the strongest force in its world. But those are not simple things.

Anyway. Just a thought.

[canon-notcanon-warriorcats]

"We need more female villains in warrior cats! Ya'll coulnd't handle mapleshade and she was a rather decent villain. Most of the time people just pick two sides: everyone but maple was wrong or everyone was right and maple was wrong. When, in fact, it's a much more deep and complex situation. More like everyone was an asshole expect for like, the kits, Myler and nettlepaw (there are more but like, i don't really remember). The thing with the book is that it is not black and white, most of the characters are morally grey with light or dark tendencies, but still in a grey area. Like, I can understand where Ravenwing is coming from, he's interpreting a sign from starclan and telling his clanmates about it. Oakstar and Frecklewish are deeply wounded due to being lied to about the kit's being Birchface's. However, does that justify the treatment towards Petalkit, Larchkit and Patchkit? Of fucking course not! It's not their fault who their father is. To Mapleshade? Understanble, to literal kids? Never. So much so, that I believe that if the kits got to stay in thunderclan, with Maple being the only one exiled, she would've not turned into revenge. After all, we all know that the thing she loved the most was her kits, and them being taken away from her forcefully, with her having little to no time to properly mourn their deaths, was what led her into the path of murdering those who wronged her *and* her kits. I feel it usually falls flat on the fandom that they were what mattered the most to her, and Appledusk's open denial about the kits was another trigger for her revenge. That and, let's be honest, Appledusk was one of the biggest assholes in the entire book, not only he was cheating on Reedshine with maple (who neither of the two were aware existed), he didn't give two shits about his kit's deaths. And one more thing, people used to shit so much on Reed, when she was right?? I know we are seeing Maple's pov and she sounds like an asshole but, she's not wrong, in the end Appledusk would always stay with her whilst maple was a fling. It sucks and it's bad but she isn't wrong. That sucks for maple but yeaah. As for Maple herself, a liar, a murderer, and a blame shifter. But also a mother, one that due to grief, rage and feeling betrayal over the death of her children, went down a path she would never be forgiven for. She definetly deserved her end, don't get me wrong, She is a very unreliable narrator too, but every narration of her has some truth to it. She's also stubborn and will get what she wants under all costs. But that's what makes her a good villain. I love her slow descent into quite literal madness over the grief and pain, how she feels that each of her kits live's should be paid back with more death and grief. I fucking adore this character ya'll don't understand. But yeah she's not a 100% Sauron evil character nor an "UWU baby girl wronged by the masses". She's a villain, she fucked things up, and she was a mother who loved her kids and her kids only. We will never get a villain like her again and we should be praising this book for how good it actually is. There won't be any other tragic villain stories like this. And if we do get another female villain, let's hope it's at least a decent character and not just a more worse attempt like sleekwhisker 2.0 Please correct me if my assesments are wrong but I'm having Mapleshade feelings and how everyone does her dirty with interpretations.

nah, mapleshade's story is really good and 3-dimensional (or as 3-dimensional as warrior cats has really gotten)

almost everyone in the story does something wrong, the situation is multiple people's faults, every single character (except those you listed) made mistakes, very tragic mistakes, but also very REALISTIC mistakes

mapleshade became a villain because of her society's rules, because of a merciless leader who decided to also punish toddlers for their parents' crimes (whether oakstar was like that throughout his life or if it was out of grief for his son) and because of her own bad choices

mapleshade is (or could have been) one of the most complicated and 3-dimensional villains the series has had because most other villains are "they were just born like that" or "they were bullied" or "daddy issues" i do wanna correct one thing though, i think the implication is that appledusk cheated on mapleshade with reedshine, not cheated on reedshine with mapleshade, since reedshine had been pregnant when mapleshade and her kits were exiled (unless appledusk and reedshine had been mates before he started seeing mapleshade and they just had kits later, i dunno), but that doesn't really matter in the end, appledusk cheated and was an asshole

i think the problem is that sometimes people just don't really... think critically about what they read, or don't have reading comprehension skills, as well as possibly they haven't read the book since they were a kid who did not have reading comprehension skills and they just still go off of what they remember thinking as a kid (part of why i wanna re-read through the series now as an adult to freshen my memory as well as to see how i feel about everything that happens in the series as an adult as opposed to how i felt and what i thought reading through the books as a kid) i also think it would've benefited to have seen mapleshade before she had gotten pregnant or before she had even become mates with appledusk, because we don't really get to see who she was BEFORE all of that tragedy, before she started lying to all her clanmates, we don't get a baseline of who she was before shit hit the fan

also i wanna mention that i do love sleekwhisker and raven as female villains because i DO like them literally just being evil for fun, like they just don't care they're just assholes

but i do want more complicated villains, i want complicated villains with 3-dimensional characters and backstories, and also i would love if we had a villain like that that was female and also the backstory didn't have anything to do with them being a mother

[eowynstwin]

hi just saw what u said about graves so i wonder, has there been a recent change in your opinion about him or is this more or less how you thought about him from the beginning? u were writing a bit about him last year i guess, i always thought u studied his body language well.. even his mimics and the way he would 'talk' during intimacy.

ironic my favorite graves piece is from your writing when u dislike the guy but it is what it is eheh.. (he's morally grey to me, yet deep)

honestly he always made me a bit uncomfortable. at the time though i couldn't put my finger on why—shocking display of white privilege, i know. i kind of ignored it for the sake of not rocking the boat with the people i was friends with at the time. I don't really have a solid reason as to why i chose to write for him—i had the idea for the fic and was caught up in the euphoria of writing again after years of not having the heart to do so, i guess.

i don't necessarily think people shouldn't like or write for him, i just get this feeling of like...are y'all looking at the same guy i'm looking at? commander backstabber speaking broken spanish as a joke? this is who you're plastering all over your sparkly coquette-themed blogs when gaz is RIGHT THERE?

honestly i disagree with your assessment entirely. he is neither morally grey nor especially deep. any complexity applied to his character is the product of fandom interpretation. we have no proof that his motivations were in any way altruistic, or that he gives a shit about anything other than his own power, or that there is a conflict between good and evil raging deep inside him. the games themselves have provided us with nothing but proof that he is wiling to lie, cheat, steal, and murder his way out of any situation that mildly inconveniences him. i'm sorry but sometimes villainous white men are really just bad people.

[homoquartz]

i'm currently on some hyperfixation galaxy brain shit for good omens where like of course aziraphale and crowley were in eden.

of course they've always loved humankind and have formed their own moral code that is Good but from neither heaven nor hell. of course the original sin of knowing the difference between good and bad - and that difference continuing to deepen and broaden for millenia until aziraphale, crowley, and the antichrist declare a solution of "neither."

because they have seen how the efforts of heaven and hell often meet in the middle at a draw. so much so they can pretty much play hooky until tensions rise too much. because there isn't so much of a difference between good and evil after all, when taken to extreme. even aziraphale and crowley themselves can't even really explain the difference.

and of course, crowley lover of machines and aziraphale lover of art start to make sense of the plan, on the broad scale, by piecing together its rube goldberg-like workings, and actually they themselves were the experiment. for the sake of humans.

that god knew that placing humans in eden with no understanding of good and evil wasn't sustainable, wasn't ideal for humanity!! humans are complex and rich and neither pure nor evil.

but they would have to learn for themselves what middle ground they need, through trial and error. a middle ground that exists eden-like where neither good nor evil wield the power. a middle ground that her angel and her demon have been crafting for more than 6,000 years.

and if i'm wrong and it's something else entirely well at least i had fun

[hvbris]

𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐎 & 𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐄𝐓 @multipleoccupancy

Samantha chuckled, her head still placed on Sloane's shoulder. "Yes, I think he might," she admitted playfully. She could almost picture it! "You're right, they could use the chance to bond again. Odin doesn't seem all that upset anymore, though. She's talking to him." And while she couldn't hear what it was they were talking about, it seemed to be a rather long conversation, which was a good sign.

"He'll listen to you," she hummed pensively. Sloane was like a father to them, and they always listened to what he said. He was also the leader of the cell, the most experienced agent. "He'll also listen to you if you tell him we should keep Odin a secret." A pause. She was hoping to get his support on this matter. "I don't want them to torture her, Sloane."

"Yes, you're right. I'd rather not end up inside the trap at all, but better safe than sorry." Being inside a giant net with a monster, was hardly a happy prospect. But she trusted her team.

Violet studied Theo with a little smile. "You're pretty wise too, you know. I'd never thought about it that way. But you're right, once we see one monster, we start noticing things others don't. And I guess it can be a vicious circle, too. The more we are exposed to the paranormal, the more we pay the price for it." Like being hunted by Hounds, or harassed by a Great Old One.

"He's not happy about it. He loves New York. But... he's worried about me, and about the entire family, too. I know how to handle cultists, but what about my mom? Or my little brothers? They wouldn't know what to do, or how to get out of such a horrible situation. I know he just wants to protect us, and I don't want anything to happen to them either. But it feels like we're making the bad guys win by running away." And besides, Sloane would keep finding them. Olaf too. And neither Hounds nor the Horned One cared about where they were. She nodded. "I have an FBI escort, yes. And now I fear I'll have it forever."

Now that they had tested the net, Violet sat down with the crossbow and started to examine it more carefully so that they could start working on it.

She raised her eyebrows. "Does it, though?" It was so strange to hear Theo say that when it was her dad who had explained to her how complex morality could be. But she had a feeling his reaction explained why he had become so distrustful, as soon as she said Sloane's name. "What if you had to perform a ritual to protect Samantha? Does that make you a bad person? I don't think it does. What if we have to kill that poor student? And what about him? He's a monster, but he never asked for it. Things are not that simple, Theo. If you do a bad thing for a good reason, is it a good thing? And if you do a bad thing for a good reason?"

Sloane chuckled for Samantha's teasing and spared another glance towards Killian and Violet, thoughtful for everything that he had learned so far that evening. "No I don't think he does either, he'll fight her for it if we're not careful." Sloane mused as he watched them both, catching Killian shooting a look towards the crossbow for possibly the 100th time that hour. "We should let them build it and test it, they seem like they could do with the chance to bond again, but I'll put my foot down around who's allowed to use it."

He worried that Violet was not as good a shot as she claimed and that he ran the risk of letting her shoot one of them by mistake, but they could judge that with the soda cans later. For now they had to make sure Samantha would be safe and then where to put the trap. At least Killian was mindful about Violet's safety too, he took Samantha at her word around that but he could see it too, Killian cared for Violet.

"We should test this out and make sure you can get yourself out of this too." He suggested with half a smile, sure that Killian would one day make a good father, in the future of course, not right away. He was barely an adult himself.

Theo listened as Violet explained about her first encounter and that she had been kidnapped by a cultist, oblivious to it being Sloane for now. "We can all feel like monster magnets, I guess after we've seen one we're able to see them all everywhere." He wondered what his life would have been like if he had never ran away that night.

He paused in everything he was doing, physically freezing in place when Violet explained that her father wanted to leave New York City. He watched her and listened to her reasonings. She'd been kidnapped how many times?! Sounded like that was the problem over the city being unsafe. Get rid of the kidnappers. "I am not sure I am the same as him. If I was in New York City, it would really take a lot to get me out of there." But he supposed if he had kids and they were in danger, that would change. "Sounds like he's just after keeping you safe, so what have you got to do to be safe on the street? You got a security escort to follow you around?" He checked, unfathomable to believe that he would ever leave once he was in New York City!

He wasn't sure what it was she was getting at with the morality of everything, and he watched her in turn trying to work it out. "I guess so," he mused, "but it can all boil down to two options, right? Did they do the crime or didn't they?" Theo shrugged, perhaps his FBI ambitions sinking in for his planned future. "Yes or no at the end of the flow chart."

[voicesunified]

𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐃

  I think Carl’s personality and the hinted at friendship between the two of them says a lot more about Elijah’s personality than we realize. As far as game Canon goes we know two things; Elijah has one of Carl’s paintings displayed in his home, largely, and this little passage in the Gallery on Carl.

“After a terrible accident that deprived him of the use of his legs, Manfred withdrew from the world for several years and sank into a deep depression. Thanks to the android offered by his friend, Kamski, Carl gradually returned to the world and discovered the desire to paint…”

  The only other Android we know of that Elijah personally hand crafted himself is Chloe, the first and original Android. The fact he went out of his way to create and Android for another person, Elijah whose a recluse and clearly doesn’t think highly of humanity, means the depth of their friendship is high. Carl isn’t just some stray friend that Elijah keeps around him he’s someone that Elijah personally cares for and loves enough to not want to see him suffer, to make his life a little easier after something terrible happened to him.

  Now what we know of and see in Carl’s personality is that he’s a very open minded person, strong willed, stubborn, cynical, he equally detests humanity with Elijah, that he’s kind and a caregiver. Carl is, clearly, a good person and depicted as such in the game with being part of the reason Markus deviates and has such a love for humans. A person like that would not be friends with the person we’re shown Elijah to be.

  With the creepy way he acts, with the secret ending, clearly Elijah is depicted as a bad person. The argument can be made that he’s depicted as both neither good nor evil but personally the vibe I got from the game was “don’t trust this fucker” and then they throw that secret ending at you and Chloe clenching her hand, they don’t paint Elijah in a good light.

  But Carl does through who he is as a person.

  I don’t get the feeling from Carl that he gives his paintings away to anyone, that given the mental state he is in a lot that he would paint a picture for just anyone, the same way Elijah won’t create an Android for some stranger he met once. Carl doesn’t appear to have many friends, I’m sure after his accident a lot of people washed their hands with him especially given the way it’s hinted about his downward mental spiral. But he considers Elijah a friend out of everyone a famous painter could have kept.

  Personally I believe that Carl helped create and design the first look for Chloe, the beginning of their friendship as Elijah painted the mental picture of his vision for the man. They bonded on their mutual distrust and resentment of the world. Carl would be someone that Elijah would turn to often, especially when things with CyberLife became difficult and they forced him from his place as CEO.

  When Carl had his accident would be the first time Elijah showed up in public, at a hospital, had to chase away Carl’s high off his ass son and take over as his medical advocate. Everything with Carl and the hospital, his medical problems would begin Elijah’s deep fear and hatred of the place along with his fear of death. However his invested interest in keeping his friend alive, sane, and away from people that wouldn’t at all care about his well being when taking care of him would push the development of the RK200 along.

  Their friendship from there would only grow, that painting in Elijah’s Villa and Carl’s home was definitely the first thing Carl painted when he got the desire to do so again back with Markus’s help. I think throughout the entire creation of CyberLife Carl would unintentionally act as a moral compass for Elijah. Despite his so claimed god complex I think he’s a relatively grounded person and that only happened because of Carl who wouldn’t be afraid to tell Elijah when he’s gone to far or needs a reality check.

  It’s not a parental bond, Elijah never wanted or needed a father figure, it’s a pure friendship that developed out of two peoples mutual understanding of the world and loneliness. They keep each other grounded and sane by being the person they lean on when shit hits the fan. They take care of each other without directly saying or showing that they do. Carl doesn’t know the true reason and depth of why Markus was created for him and Elijah doesn’t understand the extent and depth of what went into the painting that was created for him. And it would be awkward and uncomfortable if they were told. Their friendship just works for them and shows more of their character.

        Elijah and Carl have weekly Video Chat Calls.

[hoursofreading]

In a more sophisticated version of this view, Dante the poet, unknowingly or even in spite of himself, has undermined the moralist by creating a figure so touchingly human, so single-minded in her passion, that the reader can only respond to her positively. According to this view, it is Dante’s creative energies which are at war with his moral system. The creative imagination subverts theology. These two ways of reading the episode see Francesca either as the innocent victim of a harshly punitive moral code or as a dangerously seductive spokeswoman for sin. The two opposing camps are sometimes described as “doves” and “hawks.” But of course she is neither entirely innocent nor entirely demonic. The strength of Dante’s art lies in this complexity, the impossibility of categorising her as purely good or purely bad. The tragedy is precisely that someone so attractive and potentially noble in human terms, so rich in admirable human attributes, should nonetheless have been damned. She is damned because of her fatal misreading—a fatally naïve misreading—of a literary tradition.

Prue Shaw - Reading Dante_ From Here to Eternity-Liveright (2014)

[spider-xan]

I'm not going to write a post about this myself, but amidst the fun of the three suitors in today's entry, if you're a first-time reader who may have psychiatric abuse, institutionalization, etc. as mental health or trauma triggers, I recommend checking out this excellent post by @crepuscol last year which marks off which Seward updates involve the asylum and doctor-patient interactions, as that part of the story involving him and Renfield starts tomorrow on May 25; I know someone last year also wrote detailed summaries of those entries for people who might not want or be able to read them directly, but I don't remember who it was - if anyone does, please add a link!

This could be an entire post itself, so I'll try to keep this brief, but Seward is arguably the most complex character in terms of morality in a story where everyone else is either Good or Evil, as he is ultimately capable of both great heroism and great harm, even if he harbours no evil intent; as such, he is a difficult character to discuss on many levels and things will get heated for understandable reasons, but it's important to remember that we should look at his character as a whole - neither sanitizing nor exaggerating his bad actions, neither erasing his good actions nor using them to excuse the bad ones - in good faith when analyzing him, as all aspects of him are important to the narrative and themes.

Also, since we're all doing Dracula Daily for fun, no one is obligated to read those updates if you can't or don't want to, and similarly, be understanding of those people even if you disagree, especially when a lot of the ableism in those entries still happens today, as psychiatric wards are the modern successor to asylums.