Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Curio]

But, weirdly, I'm not sure they saw the piles of bodies as that bad because the way that flashback was framed, they made it look like Regina's later evil was all Snow's fault, since Snow told the disguised Regina that Regina couldn't be redeemed after she saw the piles of bodies. If only Snow had been more forgiving and less judgy about mass murder, Regina could have been saved!

 

Only TS;TW can make a character mass murder an entire village, but then somehow make the other person who's appalled by the deaths look like the bad guy. "Snow is so mean! How could she say that Regina can never be redeemed? It's just a bunch of random no-name villagers! We'll never reference this event again anyways! Regina had such a terrible childhood growing up, Cora was so mean to her, so she had no choice! Snow, you need to be more understanding and give Regina a second second chance!"

Edited October 30, 2015 by Curio

[october]

And what cracks me up when Evil Regals make arguments like that is that Snow did give her a second chance and Regina then tried to stab her to death. Even then Snow banished her rather than execute her. So Regina was literally given a second chance and a second second chance in the space of a couple of minutes. She pissed both of them away and then complained years later that no one ever had her back, that no one cares about her, and that no one has been screwed over more than her.

[KingOfHearts]

This has been touched on in the past, so I'll be brief. Regina seemed more redeemable in S1 because most of her evil deeds were attributed to her fixation on getting revenge against Snow. You could argue her judgement was very blinded by constant bad influences. However, going into S2 she lost that excuse. We find that both in flashbacks and the present there were people in her life exposing her to the light. She had chances to see hating Snow was wrong and that being a villain wasn't worth it. She knew better.

Her evil deeds began becoming less and less goal-driven. So unlike Rumple, she was evil entirely for no reason. She lost any relatability.

Edited October 30, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

That is what keeps driving me bonkers about how Regina`s arch has been written. In the first season, I was kind of behind her redemption. I mean, less so with the Graham stuff, but I thought, if she really committed to feeling remorse, I could work with that. Instead, they just announce "well, shes a good guy now" without doing any real work. And, what really REALLY gets me, is that they just keep showing us more and more awful things she has gone, while they are trying to sell us on Wogina, queen of woobies. Snow wont forgive her? Show her slaughtering a village, that will show us how sad we should feel for her. Shes unhappy with her creepy Storybrooke pocket dimension? Lets show her kill an innocent man and separate his son from him! Dont you feel bad for her? Shes crying over Dans grave! Right after she murdered an innocent man on his wedding dad! Oh poor poor Regina, how she has suffered! 

 

Its like they want us to feel bad for her, but cant stop reminding us why we shouldn't. Its makes NO SENSE. 

[Curio]

Has anyone done a body count of all the dead bodies on this show? It's hard to tell if Charming and Snow actually kill Regina's bodyguards or just knock them out, but it's kind of interesting to see which characters have the biggest death toll on their hands. (That we've seen on screen.)

 

We've seen Emma kill one person on screen: Cruella.

We've seen Hook kill one person on screen: Claude. (We've seen him attempt to kill Blackbeard, but that failed so it doesn't count. Although, we might have to create a separate category for "attempted kills but thwarted at the last second" with the amount of times the villains have attempted to kill people only to fail at the last second.)

 

I'm curious what the other main characters have done. Charming has already killed a guy on screen this season, Snow had a hand in killing Cora, and do we get to include the bridge trolls as on screen deaths? Or since they aren't human they don't count? I've lost track of how many people Regina has killed.

 

This sounds like a hiatus project...

[Shanna Marie]

I'm pretty sure Regina has the highest body count of any of the villains, whether they were defeated, killed, or redeemed.

 

Ursula was the lightweight, as we never saw her kill anyone or even do anything all that evil. She mostly just had a bad attitude, though I guess we have to put the attempted murder of Hook on her record because she believed she'd killed him. Outcome: Redeemed and turned around.

 

Maleficent seemed to have done her own village slaughter and attempted to kill Aurora (and possibly her mother). Outcome: turned into victim of eggnapping, quasi-dead (alive only with magic)

 

Did we see Ingrid actually kill anyone other than her sister? But she tried to kill everyone in Storybrooke, or at least make them kill each other. Outcome: redeemed, then died in self-sacrifice

 

I don't know that Zelena killed anyone during her first round. She just turned people into flying monkeys, but that wasn't permanent, and even Snowflake wasn't harmed in the casting of the time travel spell. Since then, she killed Marian. Outcome: still alive but a prisoner

 

Pan seems to have done a lot of off-camera harm, either killing or setting up situations that led to deaths, like most of Hook's original crew. We saw him kill his sidekick to cast the curse, and I think he gets the blame for Greg and Tamara. Outcome: dead

 

Cora killed Eva, Daniel, and Johanna and ripped the hearts out of all the Haven villagers, tried to kill the fish guy (but Hook intervened). Anyone else? Outcome: dead (but killing her was wrong)

 

Cruella killed lots of stepfathers and her mother and wanted to kill more but was restricted. Outcome: killed in defense of Henry

 

Rumple murdered Milah, killed lots of incidental random people (like the one he turned into a snail and stepped on). Didn't he murder the seer to get her power? Attempted to murder Moe and Hook. Outcome: got given a clean slate (and not because of any repentance, but because his heart was so corrupt that it threatened the whole world)

 

I don't think Greg actually killed anyone, did he? He was planning to use Regina's failsafe to destroy the town (but if that counts against him, it also counts against Regina), and he tortured Regina. Outcome: Dead

 

Hook killed Claude the guard, shot Belle (though I don't think he was aiming to kill), and would have killed Rumple if the others hadn't intervened. Tried to kill Blackbeard. We don't know what else he got up to off-camera. Outcome: a lot of self-loathing, repented and changed, now a hero

 

Regina -- hoo, boy. Arranged Leo's murder, murdered Graham, ripped out and crushed random hearts (the groom, the gypsy girl), murdered her father, murdered Kurt, slaughtered at least one village, burned at least one village (since the one we saw wasn't burned, was it? and Percival talked about the village burning), sent children to their deaths. And that's just the death toll, not even getting into other bad behavior. Outcome: white magic and being the new Savior, complains that she never gets to win

 

It's really rather ridiculous when you look at it.

[KingOfHearts]

 

We've seen Emma kill one person on screen: Cruella.

You might count Walsh, but she sort of just ducked while he dove at her and fell. She didn't intend to kill him.

Edited October 30, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[kili]

We've seen Emma kill one person on screen: Cruella.

 

She also killed Mal. But, then her dust was brought back to life by Cruella and Ursula. And Mal was a dragon....so, not sure if that counts. Her parents certainly did not consider dragons to be people.

 

Ursula was the lightweight, as we never saw her kill anyone or even do anything all that evil.

 

Didn't she lure sailors to their death before Hook stole her voice? Granted, it was at the behest of her Dad. She was also complicit in the killing of the bridge guards and the town that Mal burnt to build her nest because she was in a gang with Mal and knew how she operated.

 

Didn't he murder the seer to get her power?

 

Yes. We also saw him kill his mute maid. I'm also going to convict him of the death of his temporary student who he set up knowing that Regina would crush her heart. I'm also handing him a large portion of the guilt for Gepetto's parents (he is keeping them as puppets) and I'm quite positive he had something to do with James's death.

 

burned at least one village (since the one we saw wasn't burned, was it? and Percival talked about the village burning),

 

That has to be different than the slaughtered village because she only ordered her troops to slaughter the town, she was busy pretending to be a peasent while it was done. She also killed a lot of her knights.

Edited October 30, 2015 by kili

[Shanna Marie]

Didn't she lure sailors to their death before Hook stole her voice?

I don't know if we ever got confirmation that she actually did it. The time we saw it, she refused to carry through with it in time to stop and spare the Jolly Roger. We don't know if she ever did it in the past. But I don't really count this as part of her evil portfolio because she was being forced, wasn't at all happy about it, resisted when she could, and was planning to escape so she could stop, and all this went down before she became "evil."

 

But apparently, luring sailors to their deaths is a mermaid thing, in general. The way they talk about mermaids on this show, Ariel and Ursula are the exceptions in being friendly to humans and not wanting to hurt them. Well, Ursula was friendly to humans until Hook stole her voice. Though is that because we've heard about them from sailors' perspectives, and the mermaids are just striking back because they've been hunted?

[Rumsy4]

Ursula and Cruella happily abandoned Mal's baby in the woods, after stealing her egg for its magical properties. That's pretty cold.

[Shanna Marie]

Ursula and Cruella happily abandoned Mal's baby in the woods, after stealing her egg for its magical properties. That's pretty cold.

Oh, I totally forgot that one. I guess I've managed to repress most everything to do with the eggbaby plot. But even so, Ursula comes in really light on the villain scale, with no deaths to her record and one case of cruel neglect and one case of attempted murder. Ingrid is in the same ballpark, as her one actual death was an accident, though she had a much bigger case of attempted murder before she changed her mind. Ursula loses some points there because she never changed her mind about killing Hook. She just lucked out that Ariel was there, and she only changed her mind about Hook when he brought her and her father back together. I don't know that she ever came to any "I was wrong to be bad" conclusion, aside from no longer holding a grudge against her father. She just decided she wasn't going to be bad anymore.

 

And it's interesting that Hook has shown far more remorse and personal responsibility for being a bully to Rumple -- the man who murdered his love, cut off his hand, and attempted to murder him after ripping out his heart and forcing him to do awful things -- than Regina has for slaughtering and burning villages. When Emma brought up the situation with Rumple, Hook wouldn't let her disparage the man Rumple was and said he was the villain in that case. When people bring up the slaughtered villages, Regina tells them not to talk about it and shows no remorse when someone is killed for being angry at her about it. It still boggles the mind how they can get one reformed villain right and the other so horribly wrong, and yet again I have to wonder why they felt the need to throw in the village slaughter in the first place if they weren't going to deal with the fallout.

[Camera One]

And, what really REALLY gets me, is that they just keep showing us more and more awful things she has gone, while they are trying to sell us on Wogina, queen of woobies. Snow wont forgive her? Show her slaughtering a village, that will show us how sad we should feel for her. Shes unhappy with her creepy Storybrooke pocket dimension? Lets show her kill an innocent man and separate his son from him! Dont you feel bad for her? Shes crying over Dans grave! Right after she murdered an innocent man on his wedding dad! Oh poor poor Regina, how she has suffered! 

 

Its like they want us to feel bad for her, but cant stop reminding us why we shouldn't. Its makes NO SENSE. 

 

I think there are two reasons for why they did this:

 

1. They love having the Evil Queen act flamboyantly, apologetically wreaking death and destruction.   

 

2. They did the village massacre/Snow rejecting her to impress upon us that Regina is her own worse enemy.  Snow would not have rejected her if she didn't order the killing of the village.  Regina was *so* close to being happy but she messed it up.  The whole "message" at the end of the wedding groom murder episode was that Regina realized she was keeping herself back from happiness, as she told Zelena.  But who cares about that groom, eh?  Interestingly, Jane Espenson wrote both of those episodes, so she must think it works soooooooooooooo well.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Camera One

[stealinghome]

1. They love having the Evil Queen act flamboyantly, apologetically wreaking death and destruction.

This. I actually think it's pretty simple. The writers on this show just aren't that smart, lbr. Regina evilling it up evilly was a hit in S1, so they decided to do more of it. At the same time, they want a woobified Regina in the present, so they make her out to be some sort of huge victim in the present. Because it's two different decision-making processes, they don't ever connect them and think one might be a problem for the other (especially since present day Regina is clearly the writers' pet/woobie, they are pretty blind when it comes to her). It's just two different thought tracks that never meet.

[KingOfHearts]

 

This. I actually think it's pretty simple. The writers on this show just aren't that smart, lbr. Regina evilling it up evilly was a hit in S1, so they decided to do more of it. At the same time, they want a woobified Regina in the present, so they make her out to be some sort of huge victim in the present. Because it's two different decision-making processes, they don't ever connect them and think one might be a problem for the other (especially since present day Regina is clearly the writers' pet/woobie, they are pretty blind when it comes to her). It's just two different thought tracks that never meet.

This got really bad in Ariel, when Regina kills one of her guards for no reason. ("This is what dead looks like!") That scene was cartoonish and psychotic at the same time. If they wanted to keep the evil scenery chewing, why not just give it to the Big Bads? They've all done a great job of it. 

[Camera One]

We're not supposed to care about the guards, especially not the Black Guards.  Well, even the good guards.  Snowing rightly decided not to want to work with the psycho Maleficent after she murdered 3 guards at the bridge unnecessarily, but the whole scenario was portrayed as Snow being self-righteously unwilling to work with a desperate mother concerned about her impending baby.  In hindsight, what the hell was the purpose of Maleficent's plea to Snow at the end anyway?  It had nothing to do with what happened in "Best Laid Plans".  It goes without saying but the morality of this show is so wack.

[Rumsy4]

The writers threw Snowing under the bus with the Eggnapping plot to make them look as bad as Regina. Now they are doing the same with Emma/Rumple. I really wanted to shake Belle when she said Emma was the same as Rumple. Rumple's redemption arc is even more of a joke than Regina's. They literally gave him a blank slate and made him a "hero" with one act of bravery. Why do the writers love tearing down good people? Good always loses in this show.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Rumsy4

[KingOfHearts]

 

Why do the writers love tearing down good people? Good always loses in this show.

Because they want to say good is not always good and bad is not always bad without actually putting in the effort to show moral gray. They'd rather pay obvious lip service with Regina flat out explaining to the audience how Emma was acting like Cora, or Belle giving a speech on the goodness of Rumple's heart. The irony is that the writers want to show ambiguity, but at the same time they constantly label individuals as "heroes" or "villains". In just this past episode, Rumple ascends as not just a hero, but a perfect hero, just by saving Belle once. Storybrooke is full of people who have willingly tried to sacrifice their lives for their loved ones. But Rumple is special because of magic cleaning his heart. Without any effort, he joins the side of the angels. Where have we seen that before?

 

 

he writers threw Snowing under the bus with the Eggnapping plot to make them look as bad as Regina. Now they are doing the same with Emma

Let's not see how evil Emma is... let's have characters draw comparisons between her and other villains! Why show when you can tell?

Edited November 2, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

Rumple flat-out said "you made me a hero" to Emma. WTF? The writers really seem to have fallen under the impression that heroes and villains are something that somebody else can make a person, instead of something a person makes of themselves.

[YaddaYadda]

The writers threw Snowing under the bus with the Eggnapping plot to make them look as bad as Regina. Now they are doing the same with Emma/Rumple. I really wanted to shake Belle when she said Emma was the same as Rumple. Rumple's redemption arc is even more of a joke than Regina's. They literally gave him a blank slate and made him a "hero" with one act of bravery. Why do the writers love tearing down good people? Good always loses in this show.

 

It's not just the Rumple/Emma comparison which Hook was really quick to shut down anyway, Zelena compared Emma to Cora, so that's two episodes in a row they do that now.

 

They also made Rumple a hero who is cocky as hell apparently. Hubris is such an attractive quality. 

[DigitalCount]

The writers threw Snowing under the bus with the Eggnapping plot to make them look as bad as Regina. Now they are doing the same with Emma/Rumple. I really wanted to shake Belle when she said Emma was the same as Rumple. Rumple's redemption arc is even more of a joke than Regina's. They literally gave him a blank slate and made him a "hero" with one act of bravery. Why do the writers love tearing down good people? Good always loses in this show.

I think the Rumple/Regina redemption arcs are bad for different reasons though. Rumple's redemption is inconsistent, Regina's is nonexistent. "Going Home" will remain one of my favorite series finales forever despite not being a series finale, but if the show or character had ended there it would have been perfection. Rumple is the Lionel Luthor of this show, for those of you who watched Smallville.

I'd consider Regina a Lana Lang if that wasn't an insult to Lana. No self-awareness, continuous victim mentality, a moral compass that spins like a lathe, defines happiness relative to a man, propped up on the assassinated carcasses of better people and better heroes, she's like the worst parts of Lana and Lois combined and on acid.

[KingOfHearts]

 

Rumple flat-out said "you made me a hero" to Emma. WTF? The writers really seem to have fallen under the impression that heroes and villains are something that somebody else can make a person, instead of something a person makes of themselves.

That cheapens 3A to me, imo. That arc was spent on redeeming Rumple to the point he would sacrifice his life to save his loved ones. I wouldn't call him a hero for it, but it was much more noble than what we saw with the bear. All that time and effort put into it, and it's replicated in an afternoon with Merida with even more certification. It's similar to Regina's epiphany in 4x20 - just one Cora flashback is enough to undermine all her "development" up to that point. The obvious and fleshed-out is exchanged for contrivances suited for the current episode. I feel cheated as a viewer.

Edited November 8, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Some of Jane Espenson's tweets tonight about the wonderful morality of this show...

 

---

The Incredible Dork ‏@OhhChristin  2 hours ago
@JaneEspenson @kmkeirns that was my biggest issue Vortigan was going to keep killing ppl. Nim wasn't some mass murderer. She wanted to help

 

Jane Espenson ‏@JaneEspenson  2 hours ago
@OhhChristin @kmkeirns Is even one murder justified? Does it lead to more? Perhaps she shouldn't have been blocked.I can see M as complicit.

Katherine Keirns ‏@kmkeirns  2 hours ago
@JaneEspenson @OhhChristin If she had killed him to prevent him from killing another, that's not revenge.  The evil is what was in her heart

 

Jane Espenson ‏@JaneEspenson  2 hours ago
@kmkeirns @OhhChristin Later, the intention was to have her say something reasonable, that ends up at unreasonable conclusion.

Jane Espenson ‏@JaneEspenson  2h2 hours ago
@kmkeirns Thanks! I really love poor Nimue and all our morally-complicated characters. I hope I've given you a coherent text to work with!

 

--

 

Jane Espenson ‏@JaneEspenson  2 hours ago
@kmkeirns @OhhChristin No, but they share the responsibility. The violence of the oppressed is fueled by the oppressor.

 

Katherine Keirns ‏@kmkeirns  2 hours ago
@JaneEspenson @OhhChristin I'm honestly trying to understand, does this apply to other evil characters?  

 

Jane Espenson ‏@JaneEspenson  2h2 hours ago
@kmkeirns @OhhChristin Hm.  That's an interesting question. When I wrote Nimue I was thinking much more about real-world exemplars.

 

---

 

That's an interesting question if there is internal consistency... hmmmmmmmmmm

Edited November 9, 2015 by Camera One

[Serena]

Jane Espenson ‏@JaneEspenson  2 hours ago

@OhhChristin @kmkeirns Is even one murder justified? Does it lead to more? Perhaps she shouldn't have been blocked.I can see M as complicit.

Yes, killing mass murderers like Cora to stop them is justified. No, it does not lead to more unless you are a psychopath; murder is not like some especially good piece of chocolate where you can't stop at one. Why is Merlin complicit? He tried to reason with her. The only thing he's guilty of is being an all-powerful moron who knew a mass murderer was out there on the loose and didn't go to stop him, instead spending his time staring at roses. If he had been in prison like he should have been, Nimue wouldn't have had the chance to kill him in that moment. But it's still on her.

[YaddaYadda]

Votigan had no powers. They made it sound like he was this unstoppable force, when he was just some cruel man. Merlin could've had him in a cushy cell in no time.

 

I can't even say I felt bad for what Nimue did to the guy, especially when they have a scene sending her back to her village that she doesn't even recognize, where she doesn't even know where her home stood anymore. Vengeance is the wrong path, for sure. But how is Nimue trying to end this man any different from Percival who tried to end Regina for what she had done to his village, and his family?

 

2 mass murders walking around in all impunity while people like Nimue and Percival suffer for it. 

[Serena]

But how is Nimue trying to end this man any different from Percival who tried to end Regina for what she had done to his village, and his family?

 

2 mass murders walking around in all impunity while people like Nimue and Percival suffer for it. 

Funny how Charming didn't become the Darkest Evil Ever for killing Percival, isn't it?

[HoodlumSheep]

Votigan had no powers. They made it sound like he was this unstoppable force, when he was just some cruel man. Merlin could've had him in a cushy cell in no time.

I can't even say I felt bad for what Nimue did to the guy, especially when they have a scene sending her back to her village that she doesn't even recognize, where she doesn't even know where her home stood anymore. Vengeance is the wrong path, for sure. But how is Nimue trying to end this man any different from Percival who tried to end Regina for what she had done to his village, and his family?

2 mass murders walking around in all impunity while people like Nimue and Percival suffer for it.

Maybe it's because Nimue wanted to stop Vortigan out of vengeance and anger (like Percival) rather than purer(?) intentions, compared to how Snow offed Cora out of pure self-defense. She wasn't driven by vengeance.???? But then again, Snow still got a dark spot on her heart from offing Cora and killing the red coats doesn't seem to make you evil anyway. Killing is okay but then it's fine but then it's not if you're Hero not named Regina who killed lots of people.

I've got nothing. None of it makes sense.

Edited November 9, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[Curio]

The only thing [Merlin's] guilty of is being an all-powerful moron who knew a mass murderer was out there on the loose and didn't go to stop him, instead spending his time staring at roses.

 

If Jane thinks Merlin is complicit, then will she also admit that Snow was complicit in Regina's murders after she let her free?

 

But then again, Snow still got a dark spot on her heart from offing Cora and killing the red coats doesn't seem to make you evil anyway.

 

They ret-conned that during the godawful egg-baby mess when it was said that Snow's black spot wasn't from killing Cora, but from stealing Maleficent's baby.

[myril]

Yes, killing mass murderers like Cora to stop them is justified.

It might be justifiable to stop them, but a different thing could be to do it for revenge. Think that is what they are trying to play on here. Of course one can argue, seeing that Vortigan likely wanted to use the sword for doing more evil, he had to be stopped. Considering that it was Excalibur in his hands could even speculate, that he could have been able to kill Merlin, so all Nimue did was to stop a killer in the act. But was that what she was doing? Where is the line to draw between justifiable taking action to protect from taking revenge? I know, some people think its even fully okay to execute people for murder, but that is something I don't agree on, because to me doing that is about taking revenge and not about protection or preventing an immediate threat.

Justice can be ambiguous, not just because of the question of whose justice it is or for whom justice is done. That is why things usually are so complicate for the good guys and so easy for the bad ones. Take revenge - no big deal, nothing to be hesitant about. Take the enemy down and kill - they have to be stopped, it's perfectly okay to do it. Someone killed then kill them for it. Someone gets in the way of my personal happiness, the happiness of my family - get them out of the way by all means. No doubts, all seems clear and straight. Having all the answers just need the means to do it. For the evil guys that's it, little reflection, no doubts, they just know what is right and wrong, they can give a clear answer to that. Evil is evil and good is good, it is just a matter of who is the one writing the story. That is the easy way, the road the (more or less) bad guys use to take.

Given the show is not good in telling the grey, which showed early with the dumb "reason" for Regina to go after Snow. If they had given a far more nuanced reason it might have worked, one we as audience could have felt ambiguous about, and not something as non-evil as that Snow was coerced into telling Cora about Daniel, just that Regina was too much of a spoiled and naive and for motherly love craving twenty something brat to see anything but life shattering betrayal by the one who got it all in her view. They made the biggest mistake concerning morality and interesting story telling on the show with that detail - the biggest writing mistake of the show, one that can't be undone and is burdening everything else. The story of Merlin and Nimue and the beginning of the Dark One has a lot to it in theory, so to speak, but not with the wacky "morality" they started with Regina's "reason" for going after Snow.

Free Merlin's and Nimue's story they served us from the core of the show as it is and we could have a rather decent story about the many sides and nuances of good and evil.

  

Votigan had no powers. They made it sound like he was this unstoppable force, when he was just some cruel man. Merlin could've had him in a cushy cell in no time.

 

I can't even say I felt bad for what Nimue did to the guy, especially when they have a scene sending her back to her village that she doesn't even recognize, where she doesn't even know where her home stood anymore. Vengeance is the wrong path, for sure. But how is Nimue trying to end this man any different from Percival who tried to end Regina for what she had done to his village, and his family?

Maybe she isn't different from Percival and that is the point. As it that Vortigan had no magical powers, was "just" some powerful ruthless warlord trying to gain more power, aka immortality, looking for the grail. He was no match to someone with magic.

Maybe the point is, that "the evil" is not an entity, a power, but more of an attitude? Maybe it's more of a myth inside the universe of OUaT, told over time in all the realms and places, that the Dark One was created by Merlin when he bound the evil to a soul and through it to the dagger to control it? It's a folktale inside the worlds of Once Upon a Time. A folktale with a grain of what did happen, but changed with every storyteller and bard retelling it.

[mjgchick]

How do you guys feel about this post? I don't know whether to post it in the Fandom thread or this one so I flipped a coin.

http://theincrediblespork.tumblr.com/post/132874713803/can-the-captain-swan-fandom-please-acknowledge-the

 

On the one hand I get what they are saying but I'm not sure I completely agree with them on it all because some of it is clearly them baiting the shippers.
 

[Serena]

Ehhh... no. Baiting aside, people have been "enslaved" with the Dark One dagger (and Excalibur is just a part of it) literally since season 1. It was done to Rumple (a white man) all the time. This season had an episode featuring several gags of Regina making Emma (a white woman) do stuff against her will and it was played for laughs. This same season Arthur, before enslaving Merlin, also used magic sand to "enslave" Guinevere, Snow, Charming, and arguably all of Camelot.

 

I wish people wouldn't do these bait-y posts, because it dilutes the issues. Especially how it's aimed at Captain Swan shippers... if that's something you feel strongly about, why not write it to all the fandom so more people are aware of the "issues"? It's so transparent. 

 

Now, if we wanna discuss a problem, let's discuss why the writers can't find a plot device that isn't "person makes other person do stuff against their will with magical object".

Edited November 9, 2015 by Serena

[Curio]

The problem I have with the show's strict morality guidelines now is that they've made the rules too black and white. You can't kill anyone. If you do, it will darken your soul. You can't seek revenge on anyone. If you do, it will darken your soul. (And most likely get you killed by the mass murderer you were seeking revenge on.) 

 

So what options does that leave the good guys against crazy psychopaths who constantly try to burn down villages and threaten the lives of everyone in Storybrooke? Not a whole heck of a lot. You could try permanently jailing someone the rest of their lives, but isn't that technically a form of vengeance, too? Or are you allowed to get away with that because you disguise the term "vengeance" in wrapping paper, put a bow on it, and call it "justice" instead?

[HoodlumSheep]

I thought Nimue was handled fine. I feel like that post is reaching a bit. did the poster express similar rage when Regina abused the dagger in 5x02 or Zelena controlling Rumple, etc? How was it any different than what we've already seen in the past 4 seasons?

[Mathius]

I totally get the reasoning behind Nimue.  As I said before, she had the ultimate holy power and it should not be used to kill, especially out of vengeance.  The only flaw in the story here is, as people have pointed out, why the eff Merlin didn't just use his power to find and imprison Vortigan before this happened?  Was he that much of a pacifist that he was even against imprisonment?  Or is he just that stupid?

 

Also, yes, it makes no sense that the show can condemn killing village murderers, and yet completely allow the killing of people who are trying to avenge the murder of their village (Charming kills Percival, no lip service is paid to this whatsoever beyond a brief apology to Arthur that gets brushed off.)

[kili]

Not a whole heck of a lot. You could try permanently jailing someone the rest of their lives, but isn't that technically a form of vengeance, too?

 

Not to mention jailing a person rarely works on this show. Rumple, Regina and Zelena all went on to do further damage after getting out of jail. Ingrid's urning was temporary, Cruella's restrictions still allowed her to do mayhem and even Arthur easily escaped imprisonment. Jailing people just slows them down. Of course, killing people doesn't always stop them either.

[InsertWordHere]

I thought Nimue was handled fine. I feel like that post is reaching a bit. did the poster express similar rage when Regina abused the dagger in 5x02 or Zelena controlling Rumple, etc? How was it any different than what we've already seen in the past 4 seasons?

I'm bothered by seeing anyone controlled magically against their will,

which is why I'm slightly worried for Hook right now and I highly doubt any of his non-fans will care if it's him being controlled.

According to the poster in a later reblog, saying that lots of people on Once have been controlled is the equivalent of saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter." 

Edited November 9, 2015 by InsertWordHere

[Rumsy4]

To be honest, my first thought on seeing Arthur enslave Merlin was feeling upset at the writers doing this to yet another black character (after Sidney). Especially as it looks like Merlin (and perhaps, Lance) is going to be killed off. I agree that Arthur has controlled all kinds of racial types, but unfortunately, one can't always divorce things from real-world associations.

However, the poster was out of line calling out CS shippers like that. She could have addressed it to all OUAT fans, but she didn't. So it looks like sour grapes on her part.

[FierceAfroChick]

How do you guys feel about this post? I don't know whether to post it in the Fandom thread or this one so I flipped a coin.

http://theincrediblespork.tumblr.com/post/132874713803/can-the-captain-swan-fandom-please-acknowledge-the

 

On the one hand I get what they are saying but I'm not sure I completely agree with them on it all because some of it is clearly them baiting the shippers.

 

 

This black woman wonders what the hell they’re going on about.  That well-known plot device has nothing to do with race.  If anything, she should be wondering why they can’t cast a black woman as a love interest to one of “only four Black male characters to appear” on the show.  Black people can and do fall in love with each other.

[tri4335]

To be honest, my first thought on seeing Arthur enslave Merlin was feeling upset at the writers doing this to yet another black character (after Sidney). Especially as it looks like Merlin (and perhaps, Lance) is going to be killed off. I agree that Arthur has controlled all kinds of racial types, but unfortunately, one can't always divorce things from real-world associations.

However, the poster was out of line calling out CS shippers like that. She could have addressed it to all OUAT fans, but she didn't. So it looks like sour grapes on her part.

 

Exactly!  I agree that TS and TW do not see how their writing of another POC character who is enslaved could be a problem. However, the poster on that link was out for one objective which was to tag CS Shippers as racist if they do not come out in support.  The problem is with the Eddy and Adam and not with a fan group.

[october]

How do you guys feel about this post? I don't know whether to post it in the Fandom thread or this one so I flipped a coin.

http://theincrediblespork.tumblr.com/post/132874713803/can-the-captain-swan-fandom-please-acknowledge-the

 

On the one hand I get what they are saying but I'm not sure I completely agree with them on it all because some of it is clearly them baiting the shippers.

 

 

Re. that post: I'm really not sure what the one thing has to do with the other. Those problematic elements (which I think she's right to call out) had nothing to do with Hook and Emma. So why do CS fans have a greater responsibility to call this stuff out? Because their ship was portrayed well in said epi?

 

She needs to keep in mind that the episode just aired. Most people have jobs, school and responsibilities on a Monday. She's not giving people a chance to process the episode and its content. Deeper analysis usually comes after the immediate 'squee'.

 

Also that person is a swanqueen and swanfire shipper, so that saying about people in glass houses comes to mind immediately. I doubt she'd appreciate people policing her enjoyment of her ships because nearly every episode portraying those couples has been one shit show after another (and usually because of those relationships instead of just what's happening in proximity to them).

 

ETA: ew, I just scrolled down their blog and within a few posts found her responding to a confessions post criticising Neal for sending Emma to prison. She replied: "Stop blaming Neal for Emma’s imprisonment, it doesn’t even make an inkling of logical sense".

 

Very flexible morality she has there.

Edited November 9, 2015 by october

[kili]

To be honest, my first thought on seeing Arthur enslave Merlin was feeling upset at the writers doing this to yet another black character (after Sidney).

 

Although, rather strangely, both characters were being hoisted on their own petards. Obsessive Sidney, who should have known better, made a wish that turned out like most Genie related wishes -  a little too literal and he became enslaved in the mirror (the first time, - the second time is very troubling because not only did they have a declared "White Magic" character do it so she could plot to kill another minoirty character and then strangely made him out to be the villian when he escaped from the mirror when it really should have been a triumph. That entier episode is some kind warped morality though). In this case, Merlin came up with a spell to enslave his girlfirend and it ended up being used on him too.

 

At this point, I think it might be easier to make a list of characters who have not been magically controlled.

[InsertWordHere]

Sidney's enslavement bothers me more than what's currently going on with Merlin because Merlin might turn around in the first five minutes next episode and break the control. I feel it's too soon to start critiquing writers when we don't yet know the outcome of this situation, but yes, the implications are not good. I too am worried by the fact that he's not in Storybrooke but I'm still not sure he's dead. I am also worried about Lancelot being dead, especially as the show has already "killed" him once before.

[mjgchick]

Sydney is the one I'm more worried for as well. We've seen Regina enslave both a white man and a black man on the show but since it's Regina they don't seem to see how wrong either situations has been. Now Regina can make jokes about controlling Emma, Merlin making a dagger to control his girlfriend is seen as for the greater good because Nimue is Dark. Arthur is basically raping his wife the same way Regina was with Graham but we'll never see the show even think of going there.

 

As a black woman I side eye a lot of stuff this show does but that poster just sounds bitter to me. I'm shocked they even mentioned Sydney being enslaved to be honest.

Edited November 9, 2015 by mjgchick

[Mari]

Sidney's enslavement bothers me more than what's currently going on with Merlin because Merlin might turn around in the first five minutes next episode and break the control.

Plus, context matters at least a little. What happened to Merlin was clearly presented as wrong.

In the last episode with Sidney, it was treated like he betrayed poor Regina. That's gross.

[FierceAfroChick]

Sydney is the one I'm more worried for as well. We've seen Regina enslave both a white man and a black man on the show but since it's Regina they don't seem to see how wrong either situations has been. Now Regina can make jokes about controlling Emma, Merlin making a dagger to control his girlfriend is seen as for the greater good because Nimue is Dark. Arthur is basically raping his wife the same way Regina was with Graham but we'll never see the show even think of going there.

 

As a black woman I side eye a lot of stuff this show does but that poster just sounds bitter to me. I'm shocked they even mentioned Sydney being enslaved to be honest.

 

That "enslaved" bothers me because what happened to Merlin isn't nearly as atrocious as the heinous acts carried out during this country's slavery period.  I don't have a problem with Merlin or Sydney being control, trapped, whatever you want to call it, because at some point, one or more of these characters, no matter their race, has been "enslaved".  Hook by Rumple, Regina by Greg, Rumple by Zelena, Smee by Rumple...shit, Emma's mother actually had her in chains in the AU world.  I've had my say on tumblr and now I think I need to stay away...bitches be cray.

Edited November 9, 2015 by FierceAfroChick

[mjgchick]

Plus, context matters at least a little. What happened to Merlin was clearly presented as wrong.

In the last episode with Sidney, it was treated like he betrayed poor Regina. That's gross.

I still remember the press release saying Regina suffers a huge loss. i thought it was Robin choosing Marian but nope, it was a black man getting away from his slave master. JFC.

[KingOfHearts]

Last night, the show seemed to imply that it's the Dark One, not Emma who is doing bad things. With throwing Nimue in the mix, it was framed more like possession than simply power. Not!Rumple was already kind of doing that. So are those excuses for Rumple now? Oh, it wasn't Rumple that killed folks... it was the Dark One! He was still a murderer before he obtained the power, yes, but that opens a can of worms. Reminds me of Snowing's eggnapping being Isaac's doing or splitting Regina from the Evil Queen.

Edited November 9, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[mjgchick]

Emma's "I'm not nothing." basically tells us Rumple is responsible for the crappy things he's done. Emma was able to fight the darkness and wanted it out of her

but seeing as it looks like Emma has no choice but to turn dark because her loved ones need her to save their asses AGAIN.

 

Them separating Evil Queen with Regina is ridiculous because they don't seem to separate Hook with Killian Jones.

[Mari]

Last night, the show seemed to imply that it's the Dark One, not Emma who is doing bad things. With throwing Nimue in the mix, it was framed more like possession than simply power. Not!Rumple was already kind of doing that. So are those excuses for Rumple now? Oh, it wasn't Rumple that killed folks... it was the Dark One! He was still a murderer before he obtained the power, yes, but that opens a can of worms.

Replying in the magic thread, because I don't think I'm going to be focusing on the ethics of it.

[tennisgurl]

 

I totally get the reasoning behind Nimue.  As I said before, she had the ultimate holy power and it should not be used to kill, especially out of vengeance.  The only flaw in the story here is, as people have pointed out, why the eff Merlin didn't just use his power to find and imprison Vortigan before this happened?  Was he that much of a pacifist that he was even against imprisonment?  Or is he just that stupid?

So many issues on this show could be be handled if we ever saw any kind of real justice system on this show, other than when Charming remembers that he`s the sheriff. Find a way to use a magic jail, have some kind of probationary period, imprison people, do something other than let people who have committed horrible crimes just run around. There are options other than Death (which the show usually shows as wrong) or Letting The Just Off (which leads to a messed up karmic scale).  

[Shanna Marie]

Sidney's enslavement bothers me more than what's currently going on with Merlin because Merlin might turn around in the first five minutes next episode and break the control.

Sidney made me uncomfortable because he came a bit too close to the "Gone with the Wind" style obsequious slave who's happy to serve the master he idolizes. At least so far, Merlin is more of a defiant prisoner being used as a weapon because he's powerful. There's no groveling and flattery.

 

While this arc hasn't had a massive moral problem on the same level as the whole "Where's my happy ending? I stopped murdering people a few months ago so I deserve it!" plot, it's got a lot of stuff going on that gets rather iffy.

 

There's the issue of heroism, which is fairly consistently crazy on this show, where "Hero" is like a team you join, and it's easy enough to change jerseys to get on or off the team, and doing just one good deed earns you the hero badge. I could kind of buy that the sword (or rock) has different standards for the magical "hero" test and Rumple's blank slate just needed a tiny hero nudge to qualify, though I'll quibble a bit because while I thought that Rumple leaving town was probably the best thing for the greater good, he saw it as a necessary act of cowardice that was leaving people in the lurch, so him going after Belle was just returning the marker to zero, not really ticking it up on the "hero" side. But I really have to roll my eyes at the idea that Rumple's current blank slate heart gets him labeled a hero for one good deed by the people around him. "Hero" should be more of a lifetime achievement label, not something you get called for one good deed, especially when weighed against so many bad deeds, and especially not when he's done heroic things before, only to immediately revert to his old power-grubbing, murderous ways. His grand sacrifice with Pan didn't turn him into a hero because he immediately went on to deceive Belle, suck as many people as possible into the hat so he could get power, and plot to murder Hook. Regina also got called a hero for one good deed, after which she backslid, and then she got labeled a hero for undoing her own attempted mass murder. What's weird is that they get this more right with Hook, who didn't get called a hero for turning back with the Jolly Roger, for offering his ship and the magic bean to rescue Henry, for saving David, or for following Emma through the time portal. It was only after all these things that Emma said he had some marks in the hero column, and he wasn't keen on accepting the label himself until he actually got himself killed sacrificing for Emma and Henry in the AU (and even then, I kind of got the impression that he wasn't being entirely serious in calling himself a hero -- there was a note of flippancy to the way he said it).

 

Then there's the weird view of heroism, where what they seem to want is more about the glory than about the greater good. Charming fails in his quest, but feels it's okay just because he tried and likes getting to be a hero again. Henry gets all worked up about Violet not seeing him as a hero. Belle plays right into Dark Emma's plans by putting herself in a situation from which she needs to be rescued because it's important to her to be seen as a hero. At least in the latest episode we got to have Merlin calling Arthur out on the fact that all he really wanted was the glory of restoring the sword and Camelot, but it's ironic that no one else has been criticized for caring more about being called a hero than about actually acting for the greater good.

 

And then there's the fact that, apparently, being mad at the person who slaughtered your village is the most evil act of all, and you deserve to be punished. You get a dark spot on your heart for killing a mass murderer, but no one blinks an eye about killing someone who was mad about his village being slaughtered.