#i hope it doesn't come across as me like making moral judgements on people who don't use this method | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aingeal98 · 5 months

Text

Something I enjoy a lot about Cass is that with a lot of heroes that don't kill it can easily veer into self righteousness. It happens with Bruce a fair amount and while it can make for a compelling character beat if done well, if done poorly it just kind of makes the reader annoyed lmao. Like why am I supposed to root for this guy when he's saying "If you shoot the man who killed your parents your soul will be forever ruined!" and acting like there's no difference between types of kill?

And the thing about Cass is that while her no kill rule is based on the experience of watching someone die and the horror she felt, and while she does project it into pretty much everyone she meets... It never comes across as unlikeably self righteous to me. Like for Cass every kill is a tragedy and while her no death rule is a moral statement it's also given more importance as an rule that gives us psychological insight into what governs and drives her. Even when she's wrong, even when the villain is so sympathetic and justified that there's no reason to root for her, the narrative always feels very self aware about it. Like when she let that father get arrested despite him just wanting his daughter back. The writer (Puckett of course) wasn't interested in convincing the reader that Cass's judgement was the morally correct choice. He was interested in what it said about her that it was the choice she chose.

And similarly when she approaches people to try and stop them from killing she always lacks the morally righteous air a lot of others carry. She's desperate and earnest and determined to get them to change but it's not because she thinks she's in any way better than them and has the right to pass judgement because of it. It's someone who genuinely believes that she's irredeemable manically trying to save everyone else because if these killers can do the right thing and turn over a new leaf then maybe... Just maybe... there's hope for her?

It's so compelling to me. The desperation and clear projection that happens when she goes out determined to enforce and/or promote her code to as many people possible. Every time she says someone can change she's speaking from experience. Because she views herself as irredeemable and beneath everyone but she's still out here trying to be good so maybe if others make the same choice it's proof that she's not doomed. That none of them are. She doesn't want the hitman to redeem himself by becoming a hero and helping his former victims. She just wants him to walk away, to start a peaceful and quiet new life. And when he fails to do that and they meet again she still won't give up on him. When she stands in front of the victims family she won't declare she knows better. She'll hopefully and uncertainty ask "But maybe... He can change?"

Like there's so much heart behind everything she does and every action she takes. Every time the topic of killing people comes up she's so earnest and clearly projecting her own issues and seeing herself in every murderer and it's so fun. It's so fascinating. I miss Batgirl 2000.

#dc #cassandra cain #dc rambles #There's also the way the narrative sets up characters that challenge her #And then actually let them challenge her with no clear winner #Or even let's cass fail despite her conviction #She loses but it doesn't matter she's not going to change her mind. She'll feel like shit and then keep going

203 notes · View notes

fantasyinvader · 5 months

Text

Is Shez evil?

The thought occurred to me last night, but I think it's worth discussing. Do we play as an evil character in Hopes? Now, the Hopes!Devs did say that the war wasn't a matter of good vs evil and that it's all a matter of perspective. However, they also said that Hopes wasn't meant to replace Houses, and therefore we can apply the morality of Houses to it.

Shez is implied to be from Shambhala, making them an Agarthan. We all know that the Fodlan games use Buddhist symbolism, and Agartha is where the Asura's were banished by the Bodhisattva when they became drunk on their own power and from there they wage war against the Bodhisattva and the benevolent devas. Tellingly, Shez's unique final class is Asura, cementing this idea.

When I was looking up stuff concerning the Asuras and their world, I found this.

Nichiren defines the characteristic of (The world of the Asuras) as “perverse,” or more literally, “fawning and crooked.” Out of extreme pride or a sense of superiority, people in this condition tend to conceal their real motives and flatter others to win praise. While outwardly courteous, however, they inwardly look down on others. Such a person’s self-image is distorted and unbalanced, colored by extreme pride or a sense of superiority; the self is perceived as extremely large and important, and others as small and unimportant. Those who remain in this state ultimately do harm to themselves through their own conceit.

There was something about this that really hit with Shez. Shez's motivation is to get revenge on Byleth for wiping out their former mercenary unit. It seems like a normal motivation, but Shez also has quotes where they talk about how what happened to them is just the nature of the profession. These quotes make Shez come across as hypocritical. But the nature of the Asura realm would suggest that Shez is just putting on a metaphorical mask, saying things that sound nice while keeping their true motives hidden. It's still on Shez on whether or not they go after Byleth, and Arval not letting go of this motivation, attacking Byleth that leads to Arval's own downfall.

But at the same time, Shez doesn't lose their power like what happens to Byleth at the end of Flower. They don't stop being an Asura. They will still support Edelgard even though her path is supposed to be immoral according to Houses. Shez can confirm that Edelgard is oppressing the commoners under her rule, but unlike Byleth won't lead the BE in opposing her. Their influence on Claude ultimately leads to Claude going down a similar path, meaning it's because of Shez that Claude kills Rhea as he gives into his own hatred. Even with Dimitri, Shez had no problem when Dimitri and company's motives for the war changed to revenge, and Dimitri then continues the war after the defeat of Edelgard and Thales in order to punish the Empire. Then there's Shez's whole “I'm just a merc” gig, he's saying he's nothing more than someone paid to kill others regardless of morality.

With this in mind, we can make a judgement call. Shez, despite appearances, isn't a moral person. Shez might believe that this war is morally ambiguous, who is right or wrong a matter of perspective, but they're someone who kills for money as well as using the war for revenge which could put them into immoral territory, as they're willing to facilitate the suffering of others for their own goals, a big no-no in Buddhism. They don't care if they're the aggressor or playing defence. They're not amoral, ignorant of and not influenced by morality, like Byleth starts off as and from that they end up poisoning Fodlan. Because Shez shows up as the lords flee Kostas, they don't meet Byleth at Remire. They don't lead the lords to a better Fodlan, they just help them fight a war that's not even over at the end of the route.

Shez might appear to be nice, but we should have known better after Edelgard. As to whether they're evil, evil is defined as being “profoundly immoral.” Shez killing Byleth and by extension Sothis, living up to being an Asura, would push them into being evil, and their POV goes against the morality of Houses. That, and the Asura realm is called one of the four evil paths.

27 notes · View notes

medschoolash · 2 years

Note

(I sent that first anon, I don't feel I conveyed what I was taking issue with super well) I don't mind Daemon doing bad things or being morally grey, I LOVE morally questionable characters, and p much all of GRRM's are. It's just that there is still a line for me, and I would struggle to root for a couple that felt it was all built on a man going to serial killer lengths to possess a woman, especially as a woman myself. There'd be a difference in murdering someone for (insert various political reasons here) and walking up to a random infant and killing them, in terms of doing bad and or morally questionable things, if that makes sense? I am not at all trying to preach or argue so I hope it doesn't come across that way, I just feel like they're being blunt and there's more complex things they can do than that sort of plot, if they go that way. (I also don't like how they've made the Targaryens seem worse and Alicent seem so much more innocent compared to the book, I don't trust HBO with this family)

oh, I understood you anon no worries! I totally think it's okay to have a boundary you won't cross when it comes to bad behavior. I personally wouldn't care but I don't think there is anything wrong with people finding it unsettling that a character they want to see with their favorite romantically might become a very homicidal serial killer. I can see how something like that would sully the relationship you enjoy between two people. At the end of the day, everyone has their limits so I get it.

I'm personally hoping we get to see obsessive jealous daemon but I don't think we'll see him take it that far . I agree that there are a lot of ways they can show Daemon being morally grey and I'm sure we will see plenty of that which is another reason why I don't think they go that particular direction with him even if I think it wouldn't be pure character assassination for him if it did happen.

I'm gonna kinda disagree that they have made the Targaryens seem worse than Alicent. I don't think they've truly drawn any lines in the sand when it comes to the two families. So far the Targaryens haven't done anything horrendous. Viscerys is a weak king but he's not a horrible king. Most of his better decisions have been pretty decent. Sure Daemon ain't shit but even his foolishness is isolated to his family dynamic or war. We don't see him out there terrorizing the common folk just for the hell of it. Rhaenyra is a pretty sympathetic character most of the time even when she's being a little reckless. Alicent so far has been shown to be a pawn of her father who has been shown to be a manipulative weasel but I wouldn't say she's been completely innocent. She made the choice to keep her relationship with viscerys a secret from Rhaenyra, she could have told her. She has also willingly done her father's bidding during her marriage. She was also extremely judgemental towards Rhaenyra last episode even though I did like that she went to bat for her. Ultimately I think the only takeway about Alicent the show has firmly established is that she's a young woman trapped in the patriarchy like most high-born women and Rhaenyra and the things going on around her are slowly shaping her into the woman that she will eventually become. We have yet to see exactly what that means yet so it's almost impossible to make a judgment on whether she's good or bad. At least that's my perspective on it. I understand that book readers have a much different perspective since what we see at this point in the show is different from what was written on the pages. I can also understand not trusting HBO but I wonder if having George himself involved might help put you more at ease? I always thought book readers would like that aspect.

#HOTD asks #HOTD commentary

5 notes · View notes

rachaelnpc · 7 months

Text

Family Time.

Family is important. Always for the family.

Tense. How much have they drank? She shouldn't sit on their lap. That joke felt icky. A phobic joke. Oh people are expanding on it?

'Hey, good to see you! Have you started dating yet?'

....oh, not really. It hasn't been going well. Guys come on too strong. I don't know them at all. How do they know they like me on day one? I think I'm good just making friends and getting to know people slowly.

'I get that. I liked my independace too. Someday you will find someone like my husband.'

Announcing: Singles to the dance floor! *a bunch of young girls are out on the floor.*

Drunk: 'Get out there girl! We all know you are single. Go have fun!'

No, I am okay. I'll go out there if my cousin does.

Across the room announcer stops and waits for my cousin to come out.

Does she want that broadcast like that? Fuck this environment. I'll go out there so she isn't alone. That was a bit much to call her out.

Two male friends dancing.

People laughing.

Uncle: What the fuck! Quit whispering in each other's ear in our face like that!

I hate it here.

At a wedding playing three songs about murdering your spouse. Playing a song about catching them cheating and they just say 'wasn't me.' How... romantic. What a vibe.

What is wrong with everyone?

What is wrong with me? I feel like a fish out of water. I'm so alone and uncomfortable when I leave my house. I am judgemental. This is okay. It is for my safety. For my boundries. My walls. I had none. I need them. That is why I've been in so many 'funny' situations.

Lack of boundries.

Cousin yelling over ill chosen music, 'Hey this is my friend!'

Reaches out to introduce myself. Nice to meet you, I'm a cousin of the groom.

*He has really pretty blue eyes.*

I hope I can go home soon. I'd rather play Tetris my time away for a bit.

It is like I ejected myself out of the world I knew. I see everything differently.

The greed, the pride, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, ... lust.

I cover myself. I don't want that attention.

'Oh you look great!'

Yeah I feel safe with you. Usually I'm myself hidden under dorky close that shows 'I come in peace.' I don't want men staring, following me, giving me attention based on my appearance.

How are so many people off base? Driven by insecurity and wanting to belong. I get it. We aren't kids anymore. We have a voice. We can choose who is around us. We can be picky. It is important to have safe people that have earned trust.

I'm realizing I want to trust myself. I really don't care what others think. Taking advice from someone who doesn't align with my morals and values? No thank you. I'll act off my own. Leading by example. Not with a Jesus complex. I do ask W.W.J.D when I need guidance. Only to help make a smart choice. Remember boundries too. Jesus had boundries. We are far from Jesus, I don't have another good role model in this moment. The ones I had I put on a pedestals. Not ideal. Seeing them as someone who always has the answer.

0 notes

bittersweetcandybowl · 3 years

Note

howdy! kind of a weird question for ya. how do you navigate situations where characters say offensive/bigoted things? as a long time reader, I've noticed rewrites removing almost all usage of the r-slur from the comics (which is appreciated lol), whereas early Paulo still uses the f-slur a LOT (the "-cake" one). I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or angry! bc I know the cast isn't meant to be always morally correct or reflective of your views. just super curious! thanks for your time!

Oliver: I used to be on the freeze peach side of this argument when we did revisions for printed books, because I truly believe these are mid-oughts high schoolers and that it's worse for the comic to represent characters dishonestly! In principle, I wince at the idea of sanding down the edges of uncomfortable art, and I despair at fictional works filled with squeaky clean characters written by authors frightened of their audience.

But in relation to Paulo using what most people would recognise as "the F slur" when we were editing an earlier volume, Vero once said something very clarifying to me that governs how I approach any of this stuff now. Basically, if it's distracting to a large proportion of the audience, then that's actually far worse writing than not accurately representing the vocabulary of a 15 year old American in 2007. Better art would sidestep the problem and be read effortlessly in the voice of the character!

There's a few words in 2006-era BCB that read like a bit of a gut punch — or a political signal — in 2021, and if they can be substituted with something else, then the right choice to make is to substitute them. The job in editing isn't to robotically preserve all words a character likely would say, readers be damned, it's to thoughtfully communicate who those characters are to a audience, and language gives you a lot of paths to achieve that.

Regarding the slurs that remain in the omnibus and might be written today: it's our subjective judgement. I think "fr**tc*ke", while a homophobic slur, doesn't currently meet the threshold of something that's distractingly offensive, and so that's why it's still in the omnibus. To communicate his homophobia, Paulo has to say something homophobic!

The fact you're not typing the word in full indicates that maybe things will be different in a few years and even that word will be too jarring to readers. But we need to draw the line somewhere, and it'll have to stand that this slur seemed an appropriate way to depict Paulo's homophobia in 2021.

42 notes · View notes

cero-blast · 5 years

Note

Your post about Gin "messing with people's heads" makes me think, doesn't this also apply to Ulquiorra? He also psychologically tortured Inoue, don't you think it's hypocritical to say Gin's actions don't nullify the bad things he did, but say that UH is good/not toxic? I'm not trying to hate on you, I don't ship anything in Bleach, I just wanted to know why Gin is considered a bad inexcusable guy but Ulquiorra's relationship with Inoue is glorified?

This will get… really long. I’m genuinely sorry it’s this long.

I never said Ulqiorra did nothing wrong (though it’s fair to say I didn’t happen to specifically point it out), or that UH is a ship with many positive feelings associated to it. That would be… an interesting take. I hope you don’t think I think that. But I also need you to understand that I don’t base my taste in ships on what I desire/consider healthy in real life. They exist in the context of the canon — not interchangeable with reality considering the existence of superpowers, ghosts, semi-human creatures and time warping — and that’s where it ends for me. Applying the dynamics in my ships to any situation other than the precise one of Bleach’s canon would make them fundamentally different.

I’ve wanted to mention this about Ulquiorra for a while now and I’ll take the occasion to do so. It’s a mistake to put him in the same framework as a human or shinigami. (The latter two also have their differences but based on observation shinigami seem to behave in a much more human-like manner compared to hollows/arrancars.) He’s practically incapable of understanding what empathy is or find any good reason not to hurt other people, which is why it’s surprising when he manages to grasp even a shred of the concept right before dying. Hollows are born from experiencing such severe pain that it distorts their whole ‘essence’, so something has gone terribly wrong with them emotionally by definition, whether they evolve to arrancar form or not. Ulquiorra’s aspect of death, his ‘theme’, is emptiness — characterized by complete neutrality towards everything. Since a person with a healthy mindset tends to focus on danger and negative events, neutrality often comes across as immoral for being equally conceding towards moral right and moral wrong. The point is, Ulquiorra’s motivations for provoking Inoue had nothing to do with him taking joy in causing pain to her. In fact, it’s hinted he’s not even fully aware he’s doing it, like the scene where he tells Inoue he’d laugh at her friends’ foolishness in her place. He’s unaffected by most things AND has difficulty placing himself in others’ perspective, which results in him assuming everyone around him would be unaffected. The only thing that factored into him doing just about anything was curiosity, the need to fill the void, however you want to put it. If a human or shinigami behaved the same way he did around Inoue, it would come across in a vastly different way and I’m not sure it would even interest me as a ship. Ulquiorra is not only a hollow, but a hollow with a particular impediment in understanding how others feel, and this is an integral part of him as a character, of his interactions, of UH, of anything regarding him. I know it’s funny as a fandom meme to act as if he were human, but he’s NOT and this needs to be kept in mind.

This applies to any arrancar or espada, really. It’s tempting to judge them on the same basis as enemies who are closer to humanity, mainly because of their appearance and intellect. But this is the trick itself the narrative plays, a progression that has been present in Bleach since the start: it created a human/monster (shinigami/hollow here) dichotomy, then spent the longest arc deconstructing it by blurring the lines between the two. It doesn’t matter how smart and eloquent the espada manage to get, the only productive way of interpreting them is as people who are missing a very core part of their personality, so someone severely psychologically ill. (I say this as someone who has their own problems, before it gets misinterpreted as condescension.) Should this absolve them from punishment? Bleach says a very clear no. They almost all get killed by shinigami, in Ulquiorra’s case Ichigo specifically — Ichigo, who, by his own admission, empathized with everyone he fought and even gets angry at Yammy for speaking ill of Ulquiorra after his death. (I don’t want to start arguing about how he was in hollow state when he defeated him. He would have killed Ulquiorra either way if he continued to stand in the way of protecting his friends.)

In summary, the espada aren’t human. Ulquiorra isn’t human. It’s unrealistic to expect him to behave like a human. You’re free to pick who you want to have compassion for among Bleach’s positive and negative characters and if you decide Ulquiorra is irredeemable in your opinion, that’s fine — many characters would agree. But at the very least it can be objectively said that Bleach spends a lot of time presenting ‘evil’ characters’ perspectives as nuanced and explicable instead of writing them off. It gives the audience a choice in the matter. A core message of the entire story is that we’re subjective and maybe we’ll never manage to see the world the same way as someone else, but that’s fine and it doesn’t make us all that different; hollows can become *almost* shinigami, shinigami can become *almost* hollows, and they both have ways to relate to one another while retaining the insurmountable differences and even fighting and killing each other.

Now, onto Gin. First off, you seem to be under the impression that I don’t like him as a character. That couldn’t be further from the truth; I only said it in the tags because I figured saying it in the post would have sounded like making excuses, which is not what the post was about. I don’t know if I would call him a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person. All I know is that I really enjoyed him as a character and I could see how he evoked sympathy — in the tragic way antagonists do when they get some sort of redemption. I noticed it’s a common tool in fiction to make an impact on the audience, I suppose because we’re happier when we see ‘bad people getting fixed’ rather than someone already good doing more good things. It’s a Prodigal Son type of thing; can be argued about but it definitely makes an impact.

Gin is a quintessential ‘mysterious type’; he has a long-running plan that he executes throughout almost his entire life without ever consulting with anyone (an important detail). He had a hypothesis on what would be the most effective way to kill Aizen and constructed a convoluted plan based on it — a plan where the ends would have justified the means in many, many situations, and that required causing problems to a lot of people. He had, however, no certainty that what he was doing would lead to the desired results (which it then didn’t…). A lot of his provocation was a means to create a certain image of himself and there’s a big question of where to draw the line there, whether all of that was absolutely necessary. Leaving to Hueco Mundo and technical demonstrations of loyalty were, sure, but mocking Rukia on her way to being executed? He considered keeping everything a secret a prerequisite for things to work out — presumably because if he talked to anyone, Aizen could have noticed — but was it, really? Many of his actions were based on his personal judgement on what would and wouldn’t have ruined the façade, subjective and hunch-based since he didn’t know the outcome for sure.

Gin isn’t inexcusable, but I noticed a lack of emphasis on the damage his actions caused among fans, both because of the chronological order of the story and his affiliation with the protagonists’ side. Because the last thing he did was a good thing, that’s what he’s remembered by, without taking into account the sum total of his interactions with others. He posited himself as vicious until the last moment and did so consciously. Ulquiorra had a very, very gradual progression in the way he talked to Inoue, which doesn’t make it less rude and traumatic, but there’s a difference between him showing up and telling her she ‘has no rights’ and later taking an active interest in her views on the Heart. It would be equally reductive to interpret him by his last moment and nothing else, but all he did before led to that moment progressively, while Gin’s was a very abrupt twist.

My post was a comment on psychology on the most basic, technical level, not a moral judgement. The two are separate in the way we process trauma and that’s exactly what I find interesting. Having strong negative emotions associated to a memory (what I think Kira, Hinamori, Hitsugaya or Rangiku could have had with Gin’s betrayal) creates a very subconscious reaction that can hardly be fixed by suddenly finding out it was necessary for a positive cause, which is why healing from trauma requires years of therapy. Because *in that moment* you didn’t have that knowledge, the pain remains in your memory and it’s not a matter of logical reasoning. Now, I’m not saying Ulquiorra’s interactions with Inoue were numerous or productive enough to properly process the trauma he caused her — the canon info is ambivalent on how comfortable Inoue was around him towards the end of her captivity because there’s both scenes like the famous slapping one *and* her seeming more light-hearted towards Ulquiorra in Unmasked, plus no one has any idea of which came before which. All things considered, I think repeated discussion and an attempt at mutual understanding does a better job at elaborating something traumatic than one single piece of information on why what traumatized you was justified. And note that the *only reason* the understanding between Ulquiorra and Inoue could have been mutual is because Inoue was exceptionally patient, empathetic and willing to face discomfort, way beyond the base level or what should be expected from anyone. Even if it was a *small amount* of *not very productive* discussion, it’s better than one act in my opinion (which most of the people who had some sort of issue with Gin didn’t even directly witness). Which of them is *morally worse* depends on how you draw the lines and define morality and that’s not something I feel qualified to decide.

So, in the end;Ulquiorra:-working towards enemy goals overtly-motivated by curiosity, which can be considered self-oriented-gradual improvement-not fully conscious of the emotional impact of his actions-Inoue considers him an ambivalent presence but “Isn’t afraid”, in her words-half-succeeded, as in: failed the goal of killing Ichigo but sated his curiosity

Gin:-working towards enemy goals on the surface and soul society goals covertly-motivated by attachment to Rangiku and/or revenge, less self-oriented but still focused on close acquaintances -long-running façade of being a terrible person followed by a sudden twist towards the good side-completely aware of everything he’s doing, plan laid out hundreds of years in advance-Gotei 13 don’t interact with Gin throughout HM arc, consider the traitors a lost cause-failed to kill Aizen

Instead of this encyclopedia I could have just written “Gin isn’t irredeemable, I just said he did bad things before”, but I thought too much about it. And I might go through spelling mistakes once I wake up.

#anon #ask #long post

83 notes · View notes