Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Mabinogia]

Oh, right, I think I must have blocked that from my memory because it was so ridiculously stupid. haha I remember the victims going, forgot Liam was with them.

[Trepie]

I don't understand why people are acting like Belle murdered Gaston in cold blood.  She did her best in her own, stupid way to keep the whole thing from happening but Rumple and Gaston were each determined. Gaston was in the middle of shooting her husband with an arrow when she shoved him.  It wasn't clear to me that she meant to shove him into the river, she just seemed to act instinctively.  I mean, I don't think Rumple was worth saving (and couldn't he just poof away?) but she apparently loves him.  He was in imminent danger, from the person she killed, not hypothetical danger like her baby or in uncertain danger like the sailors.   And unlike the sailors, Gaston chose to put himself in danger by fighting Rumple.  He took the risk and he lost.

[Camera One]

I'm really enjoying reading these posts.  Though I can see A&E reading this and going, "Look, how our work generates these deep moral discussions!  Seriously on par with Shakespeare!"

Edited April 20, 2016 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

 

I'm really enjoying reading these posts.  Though I can see A&E reading this and going, "Look, how our work generates these deep moral discussions!  Seriously on par with Shakespeare!"

When it's really a textbook entitled "Everything Wrong with Society".

[ParadoxLost]

I don't understand why people are acting like Belle murdered Gaston in cold blood.  She did her best in her own, stupid way to keep the whole thing from happening but Rumple and Gaston were each determined. Gaston was in the middle of shooting her husband with an arrow when she shoved him.  It wasn't clear to me that she meant to shove him into the river, she just seemed to act instinctively.  I mean, I don't think Rumple was worth saving (and couldn't he just poof away?) but she apparently loves him.  He was in imminent danger, from the person she killed, not hypothetical danger like her baby or in uncertain danger like the sailors.

 

Agree with all of this.  The reason I'm taking issue with Belle is because of her immediate reaction afterward which was deciding that since it happened she should take advantage of it and getting upset that the deal is off the table because exact terms weren't met.

[PixiePaws1]

While it is easy for me to sit in my chair and pass judgment on Liam's actions here in my nice quiet and safe lounge room...i have to remind myself that he was in dire straits. The ship was in extreme danger, getting tossed about, the noise, the sudden responsibility (without benefit of training for that type of situation) scared out of his mind for his only family who had relied solely on him since a young boy...

I love my friends. .but I don't doubt for one second that they would choose to let me die before they'd allow any harm to their child. They might be a little sad over it but they'd never ever choose differently. Most parents would....

[Trepie]

Agree with all of this.  The reason I'm taking issue with Belle is because of her immediate reaction afterward which was deciding that since it happened she should take advantage of it and getting upset that the deal is off the table because exact terms weren't met.

I don't know. She was dealing with the accidental death of someone who was about to kill her husband for the man who is going to take her baby. I don't blame her for not crying or mourning but instead thinking of her more immediate concern.

 

While it is easy for me to sit in my chair and pass judgment on Liam's actions here in my nice quiet and safe lounge room...i have to remind myself that he was in dire straits. The ship was in extreme danger, getting tossed about, the noise, the sudden responsibility (without benefit of training for that type of situation) scared out of his mind for his only family who had relied solely on him since a young boy...

I love my friends. .but I don't doubt for one second that they would choose to let me die before they'd allow any harm to their child. They might be a little sad over it but they'd never ever choose differently. Most parents would....

I think we can say a character did a bad or immoral thing they should be held responsible for without necessarily judigng them as good or evil?  The situation is complex but this show doesn't deal with complex morality issues very well as people have pointed out.  I think what he did was wrong. But I'm not sure if I was int hat situation that I would be strong enough to make the right decision, either.  He's definitely not on the scale of someone like Regina or Zelena.

[Curio]

I finally caught up on Better Call Saul Season 2, and on the Talking Saul after-show, Jonathan Banks said something I wish I could print, emboss, frame, and mail to the writers:

 

"I guarantee it, there are people out there that have seen some really rough stuff in their families, and in order for them to survive, they'd better not forgive."

 

Thank you. I don't care if someone is technically "family," at some point, you need to draw the line if someone is clearly causing more harm than good to the family. At this point, Emma and the Charmings (and especially Henry, Mr. Emma-was-such-a-worse-Dark-One-than-Rumple) need to cut ties with Rumple and remove him from their lives. No matter if he's on Team Hero or Team Villain, he's putting someone's life in peril. They really should have done the same with Regina in Season 2, but the writers already knew back then that they wanted her redeemed by the end of the series.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Curio

[Mabinogia]

There is a very fine line because I do think it takes a great amount of strength to forgive someone who has wronged you terribly but if they keep doing it and you keep forgiving them you start to look very, very weak.

 

For me there is a difference between Regina and Rumple in that Regina was pretty much bred to be the evil queen. It was her mothers plan. From birth she was groomed to be evil. I don't think she has an evil heart, it's more nurture that made her evil. While Rumple chose evil because it made his life better. He had other options, he wasn't raised to be the dark one, he saw the opportunity, took it and is too weak to fight it. I don't think he can be redeemed because evil is something that gets him what he wants while Regina finally figured out that her mother was lying to her her whole life, evil will not get her what she wants. It actually kept her from getting what she wanted.

 

I also understand Snow fighting so hard to redeem Regina because she blames herself, wrongly, for Regina going down the dark path. I give her a pass for that because Snow has a truly good heart and she was young and sheltered when she betrayed Regina's trust and then ended up living with the very person she betrayed. That will give someone like Snow a sense of responsibility.

 

What I don't get is why they feel any responsibility toward Rumple who screwed almost all of them, if not all of them, over at one point or another. He is as responsible for them winding up in storybrooke as Regina is (more in my opinion but I know not everyone feels that way) since it was his spell and he was training Regina how to use it and manipulating her, along with her mother, into using it. Yes, he is biologically Henry's grandfather, but so what? Other than sharing some DNA they are not family. Let him go people.

 

I wish the show had the guts to just let him be the villain he wants to be.

[Shanna Marie]

I think my main issue with Belle is her habit of victim blaming when it comes to Rumple. She fairly consistently sides with Rumple against his victims. With Gaston, she saved the murderer by killing his victim. The only thing that made it close to a fair fight was Gaston having magic arrows so that a wound would actually harm him. Rumple could poof the arrows away, catch the arrows, or poof himself away. He didn't really need defending. Meanwhile, Rumple had just then been trying to kill Gaston (again), and the only thing that stopped him was Belle magically compelling him. Rumple didn't see reason and choose to back down. The moment Belle was out of sight, he was probably going to try to kill Gaston again, and he'd be motivated because doing so might save Baby Damien, so from Gaston's perspective, it's self defense. So Belle jumped in to defend someone who didn't need help, who had already killed the other person once, who'd just been trying to kill the other person, and who would try to kill again. It's all kinds of warped.

 

With Liam, I wonder if the idea of fate comes into play. This is a world where someone can be predetermined as a soulmate. In the Wonderland spinoff, there was an issue with someone who was supposed to die being kept alive, and then there was someone who was killed who was brought back to life because the death wasn't at the fated time. Hades showing up on that ship suggests that he knew they were going to die. Did that mean they were fated? Liam and Killian were fighting against fate to save the ship. Killian thought he was going to be successful, but there's no telling if he would have been. So, did Liam kill the men by staying on the course they were already on, or did he fail to save them from their fated end when he didn't change course? By making the deal, how much did he actually change, other than his life and his brother's life? It seemed like a rock-and-a-hard-place decision -- take the risk of maybe saving everyone, but still with a huge risk that everyone would die, or not take the risk and at least ensure that he and his brother would live. I'm not saying that it wasn't a crummy thing to do, but it was a very human decision. They were all in peril either way. He made the one choice that guaranteed safety for himself and his brother. It would help if we had more context of their life on that ship. What kind of loyalty did he owe that crew? Had they been kind to the Jones brothers, or were they like the captain in taking advantage of them? The crew didn't seem to have stood up for Killian when the captain got him drunk and got him to gamble away their money so they'd have to stay. If the crew had been kind and taught the boys the ropes, then it makes Liam's decision worse. If they were abusive and cruel, then Liam's decision makes a lot of sense. Why risk his brother's life to attempt to save the people who made their lives miserable?

[Trepie]

I think my main issue with Belle is her habit of victim blaming when it comes to Rumple. She fairly consistently sides with Rumple against his victims. With Gaston, she saved the murderer by killing his victim. The only thing that made it close to a fair fight was Gaston having magic arrows so that a wound would actually harm him. Rumple could poof the arrows away, catch the arrows, or poof himself away. He didn't really need defending. Meanwhile, Rumple had just then been trying to kill Gaston (again), and the only thing that stopped him was Belle magically compelling him. Rumple didn't see reason and choose to back down. The moment Belle was out of sight, he was probably going to try to kill Gaston again, and he'd be motivated because doing so might save Baby Damien, so from Gaston's perspective, it's self defense. So Belle jumped in to defend someone who didn't need help, who had already killed the other person once, who'd just been trying to kill the other person, and who would try to kill again. It's all kinds of warped.

 

With Liam, I wonder if the idea of fate comes into play. This is a world where someone can be predetermined as a soulmate. In the Wonderland spinoff, there was an issue with someone who was supposed to die being kept alive, and then there was someone who was killed who was brought back to life because the death wasn't at the fated time. Hades showing up on that ship suggests that he knew they were going to die. Did that mean they were fated? Liam and Killian were fighting against fate to save the ship. Killian thought he was going to be successful, but there's no telling if he would have been. So, did Liam kill the men by staying on the course they were already on, or did he fail to save them from their fated end when he didn't change course? By making the deal, how much did he actually change, other than his life and his brother's life? It seemed like a rock-and-a-hard-place decision -- take the risk of maybe saving everyone, but still with a huge risk that everyone would die, or not take the risk and at least ensure that he and his brother would live. I'm not saying that it wasn't a crummy thing to do, but it was a very human decision. They were all in peril either way. He made the one choice that guaranteed safety for himself and his brother. It would help if we had more context of their life on that ship. What kind of loyalty did he owe that crew? Had they been kind to the Jones brothers, or were they like the captain in taking advantage of them? The crew didn't seem to have stood up for Killian when the captain got him drunk and got him to gamble away their money so they'd have to stay. If the crew had been kind and taught the boys the ropes, then it makes Liam's decision worse. If they were abusive and cruel, then Liam's decision makes a lot of sense. Why risk his brother's life to attempt to save the people who made their lives miserable?

 

Those are good points about Belle and Gaston. I'm probably bringing too much of movie Gaston to TV Gaston in my perspective because while he was a jerk in the episode, he wasn't anywhere near as reprehensible as he was in the movie.   

[Shanna Marie]

I'm probably bringing too much of movie Gaston to TV Gaston in my perspective because while he was a jerk in the episode, he wasn't anywhere near as reprehensible as he was in the movie.

At least TV Gaston seemed to be getting along pretty well with Maurice, unlike movie Gaston, who tried to have him committed. But I think the big difference between TV Gaston and movie Gaston is that TV Beast Rumple really is evil and deliberately killed Gaston, while movie Beast was an innocent who had done nothing to Gaston other than look scary. That makes TV Gaston's actions against the Beast a lot more reasonable, while movie Gaston was being prejudiced and nasty.

[Mathius]

But I think the big difference between TV Gaston and movie Gaston is that TV Beast Rumple really is evil and deliberately killed Gaston, while movie Beast was an innocent who had done nothing to Gaston other than look scary. That makes TV Gaston's actions against the Beast a lot more reasonable, while movie Gaston was being prejudiced and nasty.

 

Actually, that's not entirely true, movie Gaston was even worse than that.  If it was just a case of the Beast looking scary and Gaston being prejudiced, then it'd be like the whole ogre incident with TV Gaston, but the Beast's appearance and nature as a, well, beast had very little to do with it.  What set movie Gaston off was immediately picking up that Belle "had feelings for this creature".  He talked up that the Beast was dangerous to get the village mob on his side, but when confronting Beast he starts kicking the shit out of him while mocking "What's the matter, Beast? Too kind and gentle to fight back?"  He KNOWS that Belle is right and the Beast is not a threat.  He solidifies his motives even further with his ranting "Were you in love with her, Beast? Did you honestly think she'd want you, when she could have someone like me? It's over, Beast! Belle is MINE!"  Movie Gaston's real motives are actually much more in line with motives Rumple has had in the past...hate toward a romantic rival who has "stolen" the girl he likes. Rumple is movie Gaston's real equivalent. 

 

Which begs the question again: we're meant to root for Rumbelle WHY?

Edited April 22, 2016 by Mathius

[ParadoxLost]

What I don't get is why they feel any responsibility toward Rumple who screwed almost all of them, if not all of them, over at one point or another. He is as responsible for them winding up in storybrooke as Regina is (more in my opinion but I know not everyone feels that way) since it was his spell and he was training Regina how to use it and manipulating her, along with her mother, into using it. Yes, he is biologically Henry's grandfather, but so what? Other than sharing some DNA they are not family. Let him go people..

 

Proving that I would never be a hero on this show...  This is my thought process immediately after its revealed that Hook can substitute names on headstones.

 

They are only two, no one, no two, no one, no its two names short of everyone going home.  Rumple on a gravestone. No twinge of guilt at all.  Zelena on a gravestone, ehh, I feel a little bad but not a lot.  Belle, well they aren't privy enough to keep Belle in Underbrooke.  Can you write Hades name on a gravestone?

 

OK, so we got one or two candidates at least.  Now we send home the non-essentials so no more names can go on the headstones as they save souls.

 

Maybe we send home the most ruthless to conscript volunteers.  Like Arthur and Bo Peep. 

 

Problem.  Solved.

Edited April 22, 2016 by ParadoxLost

[Shanna Marie]

Movie Gaston's real motives are actually much more in line with motives Rumple has had in the past...hate toward a romantic rival who has "stolen" the girl he likes. Rumple is movie Gaston's real equivalent.

Ooh, you're right. Rumple is basically movie Gaston, acting like he owns Belle (or whichever woman he's with) and seeing any man who might also love her as a rival who has to be punished or killed. Plus the sadistic glee in hurting people. The way he was acting when Force choking Gaston was a lot like movie Gaston attacking the Beast.

[Mabinogia]

Ooh, you're right. Rumple is basically movie Gaston, acting like he owns Belle

And this is why I was fruitlessly hoping that they would go further with it in this storyarc and have Gaston be the hero, saving Belle from the Beast. If they are going to totally destroy Beauty and the Beast, why not go all the way. Have Gaston be the misunderstood hero. Have Beast be, well, Rumple. Gaston could still die if they can't keep the actor, but make it a tragic death while trying to save Belle from her abusive husband. Romantic, powerful, a tale as old as time. Instead we continue the cycle of abuse. Whatever show, you really suck sometimes.

[Shanna Marie]

To further the "Rumple is Gaston" parallels -- TV Gaston seemed to be getting on well with Maurice and was offering his army to help defend Maurice's lands from the ogres. Rumple nearly beat Maurice to death because he believed what Regina said about Maurice killing Belle, at a time when even if Maurice really had done what Rumple believed, Mo had no memory of having done so and could hardly be blamed for it, which might compare to movie Gaston trying to commit Maurice so he could get control over Belle.

[KingOfHearts]

When I saw y'all saying "TV Gaston", I thought there was a whole show about Gaston's POV, lol. I would watch that.

[Rumsy4]

No, I asked why one would be good and sacrifice if it ultimately meant nothing. If bad things happen to the people I care about because I was a good person, then in this show's morality that's entirely on me and I'm to blame. However, it's no problem for me to be selfish and fuck other people over so long as my family loves me. In fact, if their love is all that matters for me to be in a better place in the end, then it would actually behoove me to do exactly that. Screw everyone who gets in the way of my loved ones' happiness. That's the justice of Once. Fuck everyone and then apologize to one person and you're gold.

Agree. The rules governing the afterlife are so arbitrary. The so called heroes obsessing over good and evil makes no sense after this arc. Anyone can go to a happier place as long as they take care of their unfinished business. Whatever that may be. One can also end up getting beaten and tortured by Hades or end up a mindless husk for no real reason.

What next? The Blind Witch ascending to gingerbread cottage heaven along with a bunch of children she ate?

[Mathius]

My biggest issue with all the complaining as to what Cora did or didn't deserve is that it's a slippery slope.  There are many other people out there who hate certain other characters and feel that they haven't repented enough or earned enough, and that it's not fair to their victims if they have any sort of happiness......to be specific, this exact argument was used for Hook by people who don't like him and feels it's unfair to all the people he's killed that he gets a pass, and less extreme arguments have even been used for Emma: that she doesn't deserve the happiness she's pursuing because she's been "selfish" and "unheroic".  Many people here would argue against such claims, but that raises the question: do you have room to argue when you're so unaccepting of Cora's own redemption and happy ending on the exact same grounds as the claims you're arguing against?

 

Because while mercy can temper justice, mercy can never rob justice.  Otherwise, there would be no point to divine law. That's why everyone is objecting so vehemently to letting Cora go to Paradise after just a few mea culpas.  That's not true, complete repentance, because true repentance involves much more than merely feeling remorse for the sin and confessing it. It also involves forsaking the sin (that is, making a deliberate choice never to commit the sin again) and making restitution for the sin to the extent that restitution is possible.  Cora could take neither of the last two steps because it was too late for her to do that once she herself was already dead.  There's a reason that many of us are taught that this life is the time to prepare to meet God by repenting of our sins, not after we're dead.

 

But not everyone believes in divine law or stuff like what you're saying, maybe the showrunners and writers don't.  

 

I personally do not believe in eternal punishment or it ever being too late to repent, for a multitude of reasons.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mathius

[Camera One]

The difference is Hook did not express regret in a single episode.  He expressed regret over many episodes.  He also took action and made amends, some towards former victims.  He sacrificed his own life for all.  Even Regina has done that.  Ingrid also did that, which is why her redemption worked, even though it was in one episode.  At the very least, that's what would have been required for Cora, whose crimes were much, much greater.  

Edited April 25, 2016 by Camera One

[legaleagle53]

My biggest issue with all the complaining as to what Cora did or didn't deserve is that it's a slippery slope.  There are many other people out there who hate certain other characters and feel that they haven't repented enough or earned enough, and that it's not fair to their victims if they have any sort of happiness......to be specific, this exact argument was used for Hook by people who don't like him and feels it's unfair to all the people he's killed that he gets a pass, and less extreme arguments have even been used for Emma: that she doesn't deserve the happiness she's pursuing because she's been "selfish" and "unheroic".  Many people here would argue against such claims, but that raises the question: do you have room to argue when you're so unaccepting of Cora's own redemption and happy ending on the exact same grounds as the claims you're arguing against?

 

But not everyone believes in divine law or stuff like what you're saying, maybe the showrunners and writers don't.

 

Hence the vehement objections to what they've done.

 

And Hook, by way of contrast, has shown true repentance.  He not only feels remorse for his past actions and has confessed them, but he also has forsaken them (he was the one who begged Emma not to turn him into a Dark One, after all) and has, as far as possible, tried to atone for them.  Cora may have begun the repentance process, but she's far from having completed it.  That's the point.  Deathbed (or afterlife) conversions are useless when one has wasted one's time in mortality rebelling against law and seeking to become a law unto oneself.  Mercy cannot rob justice.

[Mathius]

Cora may have begun the repentance process, but she's far from having completed it. That's the point.

Then she can complete it with her actual victims in Heaven. Her going to what is presumed to be an eternal Hell (a concept I still say is rubbish) isn't going to do anything to help anyone, not her and not her victims. If the Hell was not eternal and proportionate to how long she spent her mortal life doing evil or equal to the length of life her victims would have had before she cut them off, THEN I could get behind her going to Hell as justice. But as it stands, I can not.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mathius

[Rumsy4]

I don't need the Show I watch to conform to my world view of morality. There have been plenty of shows I enjoyed despite disagreeing with the worldview they projected. For example, LOST. To me, the season 6 resolution made sense within the context of the Show, and was satisfying to me as a viewer.

The problem I have with ONCE is that morality is arbitrary. It's one rule for one character, but another rule for someone else. The same issue is seen as evil in one episode, and good in a different episode. It feels like the writers are making a fool out of me, and I don't like it.

[KAOS Agent]

This show has also demonstrated that some people are stuck in the Underworld who don't know what their unfinished business is. Those sailors who moved on with Liam didn't know that he'd done what he did until Silver heard the conversation between Liam & Hades. If Liam had successfully moved on because he'd gained Killian's forgiveness, those poor suckers would be stuck there forever. So victims in life and now victims in death while their killer has successfully moved on to a better place. Do we honestly think that some of Cora's victims aren't hanging around the Underworld with unfinished business with her? Ha ha suckers! 

[Camera One]

The problem I have with ONCE is that morality is arbitrary. It's one rule for one character, but another rule for someone else. The same issue is seen as evil in one episode, and good in a different episode. It feels like the writers are making a fool out of me, and I don't like it.

 

In this arc, they almost rely on the arbitrariness for suspense, since we really have no idea who would get to "move on" based on the random application of morality.  They even played with the brief spiral of flames enveloping Cora before the bridge appeared.  I'm assuming we're supposed to be really happy for her too.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Camera One

[Faemonic]

The problem I have with ONCE is that morality is arbitrary. It's one rule for one character, but another rule for someone else. The same issue is seen as evil in one episode, and good in a different episode. It feels like the writers are making a fool out of me, and I don't like it.

I stopped watching the show because of this, and figured that I'd stick with the fandom meta. Which has, for the most part, been awesome.

 

But morality metas elsewhere, umm, I think can sometimes be pretty awful. Because they become a real-life echo of the arbitrary morality of the show. The loudest and most smug and especially vitriolic morality meta posters think they're putting out "I'm Right!" but it really comes off to me as "I'm Biased! All The Bias And Testudine Protection From Any Different Opinion!!!" There's no thought or easing the challenges of coexistence, there's just noise and a call for opposers to cease existence. So, awful.

 

I mean, I think I've been passionate-walls-of-text-y about things I'll flinch at later for what dross I've been spouting. I'm not free of bias, neither would I be free of bad ideas, that's why I believe that alternative perspectives are important to keep in a space for as long as good faith keeps. Hey, I've been in fandoms before, shipping wars, character anti-favorites. It's a bummer every time to find so much zealous divisiveness.

 

I'm on the fence about the theory that the only reason anybody likes anything is really because it validates that person's worldview. Sometimes it's more like articulating a nascent worldview, or learning a new viewpoint. These can still be entertaining, even though they don't exactly pander. They can even be valuable. With all the potential emotional complexity and all these stories to set it, Once could have been valuable to discuss (or even just mull over) the moral implications. Now I'm just sure that some way, somehow, it's gonna be baaad.

[BoPeeps]

The concept of the show the writers present (over and above the addictive characters I love to love and love to hate or even find eye rolling stupid) has totally lost it's story telling way and is either a disrespectful disingenuos plan by the writers/creators to make the fans look like easy tools or is simply a really inferior ability on their part to tell a good, cohesive tale.

I just think it is the latter.

They have no definable morality. They are on an endless circular and repetitive pattern of "let's try THIS and see if it makes any sense". And when it doesn't...oh well, so what, they don't have to be accountable...writing or presentation wise. (Magic is always the way too easy and lazy answer)

They don't have direction.

They make it up and mix it up as they go along and every now and then something looks good and plays out well. It's an"odds" game. Eventually, and in spite of the inconsistent, crappy writing, they, like every slot machine, will hit a jackpot.

Like a gambling addiction, and because of the audiences endless hope of something great, we stick around because...well, hell, who doesn't adore the entertainment win of the promise of an imaginative intelligent twisted fairy tale? The ringing bells of a slot machine jackpot is sustenance for the gambler's soul.

They lost total story telling credibility, with me, anyway, when they went the way of mixing modern dogma with fairy tale. It's oil and water. Already there is too much Disney advertising and "product" placement. And I agree that is IS insulting to the committed viewer who is looking for sophisticated, witty storylines with potentially fascinating characters. Great costuming, good looking cast, superb music and creative (and some times goofy) cgi can certainly entertain...

But the chaotic shallowness of the writing, lack of solidly defined morality and redundant plot is wearing very thin.

[Mari]

I'm assuming the issue for most is that this "Heaven" lets in mass murderers even if they don't repent for those murders.

For me, this is a big part of it. The problem I'm having with the morality of this arc, is that it seems to punish you for being someone with a conscience and regret for your actions.

Gaston was there, not because he tortured the ogre child, but because he regretted Trying to behave the way Belle wanted him to do and dying because of it. Milah was there, not because of any pirating she did, but because she regretted leaving Baelfire. Cora was apparently there just because she didn't allow her daughters to be real sisters, and Henry was there only because he wanted Regina to be happy, and wished he could have ensured that--not because of everything he stood by and watched with regards to Cora and Regina.

How long would Snow be there, because she regrets killing Cora and not raising Emma? And, based on the morality represented so far, Pan could easily be there because he regretted being unsuccessful at cursing everyone and not being superpowerul wonder boy any longer, not because he did things like kill his loyal minion, Felix. Cruella could be there because she regrets being honest enough with Isaac that he stopped her from killing people, and took that joy away.

The key to moving on here, seems to be not to regret a single thing. Make sure you are enjoying every minute of the evil you do, so that you don't regret it and get held back from the light show.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mari

[Selina K]

Part of the issue here to me is also the fact that we're watching fairy tales, and fairy tales stem from morality tales and plays.  So we have something of a bias and go in to the construct expecting from our historical exposure that there will be a literary sense to what we are watching.  Even if you twist up the concepts and pairings, there is an idea behind a fairy tale that the good are rewarded for making appropriate choices and the evil are punished.  Even when the evil repents, there is a price or a penance to pay (forgive me) and when we don't see the price paid adequately (which varies by our own standards), I think there is an instinctive rebellion against the construct.  Humans are programmed to measure and assess "fairness."  Cora's price doesn't seem fair compared to all the evil we know and saw her perpetrate.

 

If there is no price and deeds do not accompany the words of apology, what is the point of the story?  Be an asshole when you're alive and as long as you're eventually a little sorry for one bad thing when you're dead, it's all cool?  I tell my kids all the time I don't want to hear sorry, I want to see sorry, meaning I want to see a change in your behavior that accompanies your words.  If you give me the words, but you don't give me the actions, your words are pointless.  In Cora's case, all of her actions we saw, up until two minutes before moving on, did not match her words.  Barbara Hershey is awesome, and I wanted to believe it, but I don't have any penance or reform or change that I saw to which I can pin her words.

[Mathius]

The key to moving on here, seems to be not to regret a single thing.

 

So you think the writers are trying to endorse Regina's infamous moral view, then?

 

Even if you twist up the concepts and pairings, there is an idea behind a fairy tale that the good are rewarded for making appropriate choices and the evil are punished.

 

Maybe this show is trying for the ultimate fairy tale twist, then, twisting that very idea?

 

Nah, I'm giving the writers too much credit there.

 

Even when the evil repents, there is a price or a penance to pay (forgive me) and when we don't see the price paid adequately (which varies by our own standards), I think there is an instinctive rebellion against the construct.  Humans are programmed to measure and assess "fairness."  Cora's price doesn't seem fair compared to all the evil we know and saw her perpetrate.

 

I dunno, maybe this is a fault in human programming?  The whole "fairness" angle and "justice" angle, the whole "an eye for an eye" dogma...at a certain point, you start to question if it's all just an elaborate way to justify revenge or to get away with doing something terrible to others.  I feel evil should be punished, but the punishment should stem from itself and be a natural consequence for its own deeds.  The notion of good or some higher force being morally obligated to punish evil in the end doesn't quite gel with me: it's OK to kill/torture/condemn someone or make them suffer just because they killed/tortured/condemned or made others suffer?  "Fairness" is one way of looking at it.  "Hypocrisy" is another.

[legaleagle53]

Mathius, on 25 Apr 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

So you think the writers are trying to endorse Regina's infamous moral view, then?

 

 

Maybe this show is trying for the ultimate fairy tale twist, then, twisting that very idea?

 

Nah, I'm giving the writers too much credit there.

 

 

I dunno, maybe this is a fault in human programming?  The whole "fairness" angle and "justice" angle, the whole "an eye for an eye" dogma...at a certain point, you start to question if it's all just an elaborate way to justify revenge or to get away with doing something terrible to others.  I feel evil should be punished, but the punishment should stem from itself and be a natural consequence for its own deeds.  The notion of good or some higher force being morally obligated to punish evil in the end doesn't quite gel with me: it's OK to kill/torture/condemn someone or make them suffer just because they killed/tortured/condemned or made others suffer?  "Fairness" is one way of looking at it.  "Hypocrisy" is another.

 

Then what do you call "restitution," which is both an element of justice and a vital part of true repentance?  Remember also that forgiving the sin is NOT the same thing as condoning it -- the sinner must still be held accountable for his/her actions according to the demands of justice.  Once again, mercy cannot rob justice.

 

I'd go on at length about this, but for me to do so would be to invoke theological teachings that I feel are well outside the scope of even this thread (it's not Theology 101, after all).  So I will just leave you with this thought:  If no one were ever held fully accountable for his/her acts, what would justice be able to do, or mercy either, for that matter, since neither would have claim upon such a person?

[Mari]

So you think the writers are trying to endorse Regina's infamous moral view, then?

Not purposely. I think they would be shocked that it's viewed that way--after all, that no regrets moment was presented as a triumphant moment for Regina, and there did not seem to be any recognition of the sociopathic nature of it.

But that is the morality they are presenting; the afterlife doesn't depend on whether or not you did bad or good things, or whether or not you've figured out how to become a more complete, caring person, or whether you've tried to make amends to people you've wronged. It depends on whether or not you've managed to purge any regret you've had.

What message is that, besides "Do what you will, to who you will, as long as you get what you want."? No regrets!

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mari

[Selina K]

 

I dunno, maybe this is a fault in human programming?  The whole "fairness" angle and "justice" angle, the whole "an eye for an eye" dogma...at a certain point, you start to question if it's all just an elaborate way to justify revenge or to get away with doing something terrible to others.  I feel evil should be punished, but the punishment should stem from itself and be a natural consequence for its own deeds.

 

Capuchin monkey fairness

 

Check out this video - animals have a sense of fairness and equity, so if it is a fault in human programming, it runs through multiple species.  

 

I look at Cora and think "Oh, she killed many people, was basically an abusive parent to her daughters, stepped on and used many people, and was just an all around terrible person, and she gets to go to "Heaven" while Milah, who abandoned her child and likely killed people while she was a pirate, but on a smaller scale than Cora, is in the River of Lost Souls.  Emma, is the "Savior" has been sacrificing her own well being for that of others and she gets her lover killed and called the evilest of evil for manipulating a girl.  There is no way to balance these that in any way says "fair" or that makes logical or common sense.  If this show was about upending the trope of fairy tales by saying "ha ha, nothing matters!" I wish I knew I was signing on for nihilism at the start because I'm not interested in that story.

 

I think the supernatural element is compounding the argument because at this point we are talking eternal punishment or reward and it brings in a semi-religious aspect that starts to cross into personal beliefs about afterlife that complicate the view of the question of "morality" and why people choose to be moral or not and how morality is even defined.  I think your position is more workable in life, though I would still argue for punishment for murderers being something more than "those people don't invite me over for dinner."  I'm for natural consequences in smaller scenarios - I leave the house with no coat, I'm cold all day and maybe get sick - versus crimes that alter the state of existence and well being of others.

[Shanna Marie]

For me, it's not so much about wanting to see Cora burn in hell as it is the feeling that the deck is stacked even higher against the heroes. If you try to be good, you're held to a higher standard than someone who goes through life not caring about being good. If you're wronged, then not only is wanting revenge bad and a worse crime than the original offense, but wanting justice or even being angry is also a worse offense than the original wrong. If you do one bad thing, that puts you on the same level as mass murderers. Now we know that this continues into the afterlife, where your outcome has little to do with your behavior in life. It's all about your unfinished business, which may not even be something that has anything to do with you but is what someone else needs (Auntie Em's unfinished business was apparently Dorothy needing her help), and resolving that one bit of business allows you to move on to a better place. Meanwhile, other people making strides toward resolving their business get tossed into the River of Lost Souls. There's no sense of justice or fairness, and it's all rather arbitrary. Nothing means anything.

 

They're not even consistent with the repentance and regret allowing someone to move on. According to the standard set with Cora, Hook shouldn't even have stopped by in the Underworld, since in life he repented of his past wrong deeds, showed remorse, tried to atone, and died sacrificing himself for the sake of his loved ones. He didn't even die as a Dark One, since the Darkness was out of him by then, and he died "normal," as shown by the wound on his neck reappearing. If Cora was stuck in the Underworld just because she needed to do right by her daughters and she got to move on to "heaven" because she resolved things with her daughters, with no accounting for all her other sins and crimes, then why would someone who had repented of his crimes, changed his life, tried to atone, and died saving others be sent to the Underworld to be tortured? Or there's Milah, who did less wrong than Cora and who was trying to help others, but who then got punished.

 

There's not much benefit to being a good person in this universe. In life, you can't make one wrong move without being harshly judged, you can't defend yourself, you can't get angry, you can't get justice, and bad things happen to you when you try to do good for others, and you may get stuck in the Underworld after death because someone else might need you to complete their unfinished business. But if you're evil, you can do all the evil you want, and your victims have to take it. They can't even fight back or get justice without being considered more evil than you are. If you do one good thing, you're considered a hero, and your victims have to accept that you're redeemed even if you don't apologize or repent. Even if you don't repent, you can go to heaven in death if you resolve one issue in the Underworld. There doesn't seem to be much reward for doing good, either in this life or in the next.

 

I think it might have worked better if Cora's fate had remained ambiguous, where she just disappeared and it wasn't obvious that she was going to either the good place or to the flames. We didn't need to see her burning in hell, but we wouldn't have seen someone who destroyed so many lives out of raw ambition being rewarded.

[Mathius]

I think it might have worked better if Cora's fate had remained ambiguous, where she just disappeared and it wasn't obvious that she was going to either the good place or to the flames.

 

That would be best, we shouldn't have had that scene at all and just assumed she moved on offscreen like the Apprentice.

 

If you try to be good, you're held to a higher standard than someone who goes through life not caring about being good. If you're wronged, then not only is wanting revenge bad and a worse crime than the original offense, but wanting justice or even being angry is also a worse offense than the original wrong. If you do one bad thing, that puts you on the same level as mass murderers.

 

This I agree with, the double standard is ridiculous.

 

Now we know that this continues into the afterlife, where your outcome has little to do with your behavior in life.

Not always, not everyone goes to the Underworld, in fact most don't, since they have no unfinished business. They accept death and go straight on to their better or worse place.

 

Meanwhile, other people making strides toward resolving their business get tossed into the River of Lost Souls.

 

You're assuming they'll stay there by the end of the arc, I say we wait and see.

 

There's no sense of justice or fairness, and it's all rather arbitrary. Nothing means anything.

 

Who says life - or death - has fair or just?  In my experience, it seldom is.

 

Hook shouldn't even have stopped by in the Underworld, since in life he repented of his past wrong deeds, showed remorse, tried to atone, and died sacrificing himself for the sake of his loved ones. He didn't even die as a Dark One, since the Darkness was out of him by then, and he died "normal," as shown by the wound on his neck reappearing.

 

He was stuck there by his guilt and self-loathing.  He should have just gone straight to the better place, yes, but his feelings of inadequacy, that he didn't deserve the better place, is what landed him in the Underworld. 

 

Or there's Milah, who did less wrong than Cora and who was trying to help others, but who then got punished.

 

She wasn't punished, her fate had nothing to do with her crimes or her good deeds and everything to do with Rumple being an asshole.  Her good karma wasn't going to magically shield her from Rumple's attack. 

 

There's not much benefit to being a good person in this universe. In life, you can't make one wrong move without being harshly judged, you can't defend yourself, you can't get angry, you can't get justice, and bad things happen to you when you try to do good for others, and you may get stuck in the Underworld after death because someone else might need you to complete their unfinished business. But if you're evil, you can do all the evil you want, and your victims have to take it. They can't even fight back or get justice without being considered more evil than you are. If you do one good thing, you're considered a hero, and your victims have to accept that you're redeemed even if you don't apologize or repent. Even if you don't repent, you can go to heaven in death if you resolve one issue in the Underworld. There doesn't seem to be much reward for doing good, either in this life or in the next.

 

And again, I say: so what?  Why does being a good person need a reward to make you keep going?  To do good for the rewards is false goodness.  I agree that evil being rewarded is a load of crap, but I think you're blowing it out of proportion: aside from Cora, the people we've seen go to Heaven are Herc and Meg (good people), Liam and Henry Sr. (also fundamentally good people who have just done bad things that they regret, which I've heard some fans claim should bar them from Heaven, as if only perfect flawless people who never do anything bad can go to Heaven. It's pretty much these fans holding the exact same double standard the show holds towards heroes.)  

 

Check out this video - animals have a sense of fairness and equity, so if it is a fault in human programming, it runs through multiple species.

 

 

 

You're using humans' closest animal relative as your example, my point still stands! :P

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mathius

[Selina K]

 

Why does being a good person need a reward to make you keep going?  To do good for the rewards is false goodness.

 

Well, I point back to the issue of "fair" in that if I am a good person and I get constantly crapped on, it isn't a lot of incentive to stay a good person when bad people get everything they want.  Why are good people good?  There is always a reward, whether it is the internal satisfaction of feeling "good" because you made the "right" choice or external validation of "goodness" in being thanked, getting money, achieving eternal salvation or possibly avoiding eternal damnation.  If you don't get some happiness (reward) from being "good" than people will not choose to be good.  

[KingOfHearts]

I believe almost everyone in the Underworld is meant to move on to Olympus eventually. The Underworld's original purpose was probably to give people the chance to repent and move on from their pasts. Although, I'm not sure why the River of Lost Souls exists. (Unless Hades created it.) Maybe it functions as Tartaros for locking up special cases. But basically the Underworld is a test you have eternity to study for. I'm still confused on the difference between River of Lost Souls and the fire. Is there really a hell in the Once universe? 

 

Moral merits seem to be off the table. I'm not sure why Zeus would be so adamantly against letting people with emotional baggage into Olympus, but perfectly fine with mass murderers. If unfinished business is the only requirement, it would be solely for the benefit of the departed. (So they wouldn't have to live eternally with guilt or remorse.) But that doesn't explain why there's eternal torment if they attempt to cross over without fulfilling it.

 

 

Why does being a good person need a reward to make you keep going?  To do good for the rewards is false goodness.

Positive reinforcement doesn't work in the Once universe very well, unless you're Regina. If you're a villain, you're persuaded to do good by getting rewards. If you're a hero, you're persuaded to do good by either just because that's what heroes do or your love for others. The problem for is that villains can do 20 bad things and 1 good thing, but they'll still get rewarded for doing 1 good thing and go mostly unpunished for the bad things. For heroes, it's the reverse. The bad always outweighs the good for them. Because of this rule, there's little incentive to stay consistently good. 

 

Realistically, positive reinforcement can be effective incentive. (Especially for recovering villains.) But it can only get you so far. If you want to become a hero, like the show says, it has to evolve into doing good even though you may not be rewarded for it. To me that shows you are legitimately redeeming yourself. It becomes less about trying to obtain a certain standing and more about caring for others. Putting the instant reward aside, it was good that Cora decided she was going to help her daughters whether she was going to hell or not. That was a definite sign of growth. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Mabinogia]

It does seem to be about regret, not about how terrible a human being you are or how many innocent lives you've destroyed. So pretty much you could kill your infant and go to the happy place so long as you have no regret about killing the child. But if you accidentally cause the death of your child and regret it terribly you are stuck in this weird purgatory for all time, because your infant is dead and probably moved on so you can't shed your regret and be a happy killer. It's fucked up. That is not justice, it is not fair, it is not merciful or forgiving or understanding. It is moronic and totally screwed up.

 

I'm not a believer in eternal damnation or eternal bliss. I'm a believer in growth. So I don't necessarily want Cora to rot in hell forever. But I don't think she has earned an eternity of light and happiness yet either. I would have preferred this Underbrooke to be a place where one must atone for all one's harmful acts against others rather than a place to wait for a chance to shed one regret.

 

All I can hope is that once she gets up there all the people she killed rally together to torment her forever.  (I know, I know, I said I'm not about eternal whatever, but she's not real. She is a personification of evil and this is basically a (warped) morality tale so I want her to get what she deserves, and that ain't happiness.

 

The only thing Cora regretted doing was keeping her daughters apart, not the countless people she murdered. So once she gave her daughter, who were both much better off than any of her other many victims, their memory back she was free to go be eternally happy? Nope, if that is the way this world works I want none of it.

 

And I am furious mostly that she gets a happy ending while Auntie Em is suffering eternal damnation in that stupid river. If evil shouldn't be punished then good people shouldn't be either.

[KAOS Agent]

I think one of the things that's really bothered me about the morality of 5B is that the heroes are consistently faced with their pasts and punished for it, while Regina, who has the biggest contingent of people who'd be pissed at her in the Underworld, completely skates. In fact, the two people she faced apologized to her and moved on, making Regina happy. Why is it that Emma gets punched in the face? We saw Belle end up staining her soul when faced with Gaston. David met his angry twin and was forced to fight him. Liam & Hook were attacked by the sailors who died in the storm. Meanwhile, Regina hasn't faced any of the real damage she did. Where the hell are the Percivals of the Underworld forcing Regina to truly understand the suffering she wrought? Because I gotta say, that whole part where she waved off Snow talking about all she'd lost with Emma because they eventually found each other shows that Regina understands jack about her past deeds. This arc could have done a lot for Regina and understanding how much she'd hurt people and helping them move on. Instead, she's getting the shinies while everyone else is hurting.

 

While I'm at it, where are the people Zelena screwed over? Shouldn't they be looking to get some of their own back? I guess maybe Hades took care of them, but come on. I'd say Hook has skated too in terms of facing his victims, but he was tortured, mauled by a massive dog and was later attacked by the sailors, and there's only so much the show could reasonably put onto the character before it's turning people off. Anyway, moral of the story: Be a villain. 

[Shanna Marie]

On 4/26/2016 at 11:25 PM, KAOS Agent said:

I'd say Hook has skated too in terms of facing his victims, but he was tortured, mauled by a massive dog and was later attacked by the sailors, and there's only so much the show could reasonably put onto the character before it's turning people off. Anyway, moral of the story: Be a villain. 

That's where that karma equation I came up with over the summer seems to fit, though I don't recall if I put remorse in it back then. It should be there:
Good deeds+suffering+remorse and repentance-bad deeds=outcome

If the equation doesn't balance, it feels wrong. If the bad deeds aren't outweighed by good deeds, suffering, and remorse, and yet the outcome is still positive, it rankles, while if the good, suffering, and remorse far overwhelm the bad deeds but the outcome is negative, it feels wrong.

With Hook, he's got some good deeds on his record, and he was capable of occasionally doing good things even at his worst, as long as it didn't get in the way of his revenge. He's suffered the loss of everyone he's loved, he lost a hand, he had his heart ripped out by Rumple, he's now been killed multiple times, and he sacrificed himself to end the Darkness. He's not only changed his behavior, but he's admitted where he was at fault and has expressed remorse for his past bad acts, both the revenge and some of the piracy. That all would seem to far overwhelm the bad deeds we know about. He'd have had to be far worse than has been suggested for him to get a negative score now. Emma's score is really out of whack, when you look at her level of good deeds, her level of suffering, her few bad deeds, and the level of her remorse for her few bad deeds, but then her outcome is so very negative.

With Cora, she had zero good deeds that I can think of (that we've seen) other than giving her daughters' memories back, and that was a desperation move after her first attempt at deception. She had suffering earlier in life and then spent a few days back as a miller's daughter in the Underworld, but otherwise she managed to become nobility and even a queen, so the majority of her life seemed to have gone pretty well. She did express remorse for what she did to her daughters, but there was nothing about the way she treated her husband, all the rest of her social climbing, murdering Eva, keeping a vault of hearts, etc. And she had a lot of bad deeds. It doesn't add up. Milah might not necessarily have a positive score, since we don't know enough about her to know if she ever did any good or how much bad she did, but she should have a better score than Cora, simply because it would be just about impossible for someone without Cora's power to do the level of damage Cora did.

[Mathius]

Quote

Milah might not necessarily have a positive score, since we don't know enough about her to know if she ever did any good or how much bad she did, but she should have a better score than Cora, simply because it would be just about impossible for someone without Cora's power to do the level of damage Cora did.

Again, why are we bringing Milah into this?  She was condemned for her deeds or for any "score", she was condemned by Rumple because Rumple sucks.  The River of Lost Souls has jack shit to do with judgement, it's completely impartial. 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Mathius

[Shanna Marie]

48 minutes ago, Mathius said:

Again, why are we bringing Milah into this?  She was condemned for her deeds or for any "score", she was condemned by Rumple because Rumple sucks.  The River of Lost Souls has jack shit to do with judgement, it's completely impartial. 

The equation is really more a way to explain audience satisfaction/dissatisfaction. It's the way we feel things should work out. Within the world of the show, yeah, we know it's because Rumple sucks. But as an audience member, when the outcomes for the characters are so out of whack with what feels right, it ends up being very unsettling. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't so across the board, where some of the worst people seem to get the better outcomes. This arc is making that sense of injustice even worse because it shows that the scales don't even balance in the afterlife. Just as bad things happen in life because you run into someone who sucks, apparently that still applies to the afterlife. Nothing you do matters because you can still end up being the victim of a selfish jerk, even after you're dead.

[Ailianna]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 2:54 PM, Shanna Marie said:

With Cora, she had zero good deeds that I can think of (that we've seen) other than giving her daughters' memories back, and that was a desperation move after her first attempt at deception. She had suffering earlier in life

Did she really suffer all that much though?  She was poor and had to work for a living...so did and do a lot of people, including David.  People picked on her?  That's unfortunate, but she didn't seem to be the type to win friends and influence people either.  She certainly didn't go out of her way to show people her friendly side.  The circumstances of her birth didn't live up to her ambition...so?  That's not even really suffering, if you ask me.  It's just not being satisfied with your life.  And that's a personal choice.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Ailianna

[Shanna Marie]

1 hour ago, Ailianna said:

The circumstances of her birth didn't live up to her ambition...so?  That's not even really suffering, if you ask me.  It's just not being satisfied with your life.  And that's a personal choice.

I was attempting to be at least a little bit charitable and give Cora as many points as possible. She did have suffering when compared to, say, Regina, who grew up in luxury. But no, I don't consider that at all an excuse, and it doesn't compare to what people like Hook and Emma experienced in their early lives.

[InsertWordHere]

Didn't they hint that Cora's father abused her? Or am I confusing him with Zelena's dad and Cora's dad was just an indolent drunk who made Cora do all the work? The latter, depending on how early it started, would count as suffering in my book and not just hard work.

[KingOfHearts]

18 minutes ago, InsertWordHere said:

Didn't they hint that Cora's father abused her? Or am I confusing him with Zelena's dad and Cora's dad was just an indolent drunk who made Cora do all the work? The latter, depending on how early it started, would count as suffering in my book and not just hard work.

It was never implied that Cora's father was abusive. That was just Zelena's. All we saw of Cora's father was him passed out with a jug outside the mill. He says, "What? I'm resting." Then Cora throws the jug and berates him. 

Before 5x19, I didn't think Zelena's dad was necessarily abusive. He was harsh and alcoholic so it was likely, but we saw so little of him. All that changed after he prepared to beat her.

Edited May 1, 2016 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

This Show is so bent on redeeming villains, that common decency gets tossed by the wayside. It made me sick to see Regina choosing her sister's side over Robin's and ask him to hand his baby over to his rapist. I think Robin was emotionally pressured in that moment, but he still ought not to have handed the baby over to Zelena and Hades (who is a completely unknown factor and a villain). If Robin can't trust Zelena, he has even less reason to trust Hades with his child. No normal person would should risk the life and safety of an infant over the question of sentiment. But this is also the guy who allowed Bagel to use Roland as shadow-bait out of some misguided sense of debt to Rumple. So, I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. These people are all TSTL.

[Camera One]

I'm glad Snow left the Underworld before Cora came back on, but I wonder how the writers would have handled Snow and Cora if they had met.  Would they have Snow apologize to Cora, or the other way around?  Or another variation of "It's complicated".  Would Snow bringing up Johanna, Leopold and Eva have muddied the message of "Sisters"?

[KingOfHearts]

4 hours ago, Camera One said:

Would Snow bringing up Johanna, Leopold and Eva have muddied the message of "Sisters"?

Plot twist: Eva is Cora's long-lost sister she met as a child before Eva's evil mother erased their memories. Snow and Regina are cousins. Regina married her own uncle. Henry's mother is also his great aunt and great-step-grandmother.

I'm surprised the writers skipped the opportunity to make the gene pool even smaller than the puddle it already is.

Edited May 4, 2016 by KingOfHearts