Morality in Storybrooke / Social Issues: Threads Combined!

[Souris]

And honestly, I wouldn't even mind Regina's skewed view of reality if the other characters were allowed to call her on her bullshit. If the show didn't present her skewed view of reality as actual reality. If, as Regina's stomping around berating Emma for ruining her life, Emma had gotten to holler back, "You want to talk about life-ruining, lady?!" If the other characters were allowed to be all, "You know what, Regina? You're wrong, and the only one who can change your path is you."

 

But they're not and it's creating this ass-backwards world where the victims apologize to their abusers and the abuser gets away with everything and still wants more. Which is the exact opposite of a fairy tale, where good is supposed to defeat evil.

 

Absolutely! It's everybody else's reactions to Regina that are the problem, not Regina herself, really. If characters were able to react to her with any realism, and people actually called her on her shit, it would be fine. If the show didn't portray her as the victimiest victim that ever victimed, it would be fine. If the show didn't force every other character to cheerlead her and apologize to HER for things they have absolutely no reason to, it would be fine. If the show didn't whitewash her crimes and equate a kid telling a secret or Emma saving a life with Regina's murders etc., it would be fine. If the show recognized her selfish narcissism and presented her as in the wrong, it would be fine. She could be exactly the same character as she is, and it would be fine.

 

But that's not how the show deals with Regina, and it's NOT fine.

[Rumsy4]

Yeah, that was a bit weird. Anna seemed strangely paranoid and suspicious too. She was wary of Ingrid right away way back when, which made Ingrid immediately gun for her. She even asked Elsa if Emma could be trusted. Which is all well and good, and maybe this is a result of her being burned by being too trusting with Hans. But it clashes a little bit with her supposed positivity.

I agree. She was alternately positive or suspicious. She basically came across as someone who just reacts to situations without an ounce of thought or logic. So, I just couldn't get what made her suddenly decide to be so understanding of her aunt.

[Camera One]

She was kind of judgemental too.  It was way overboard in the Charming flashback, when she was basically saying he was a coward.  And then saying to Cursed Snow and Charming that she "expected more of them"?  What the hell?  She hardly knows them.  She was under the Curse herself so if anyone could understand, you'd think she would.  Her bubbly personality still makes her likeable, and I'm so glad she clicked so well with Elsa and Kristoff, or else I wouldn't have liked her as much.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

And she wrote off Charming's father for being an alcoholic. Where did that "family" crap go in that instance?

[FabulousTater]

So, the implication is that if Ingrid had not been family, Anna would not have shown her that compassion and understanding. All in all, that was an ambiguous moral lesson presented in the episode.

The writers pick and choose how the villains die based solely on the end result they are writing for. They know the outcome they want for their plot and write around that.

 

The writers want to write a "redemption" story for Regina and Rumple, so the writers give them a pass for everything the've done. The writers have the other characters go out of their way to ignore the dead bodies that Regina and Rumple have left in their wake or that Regina was trying to kill them for two full seasons, simply because "they're family". 

 

Zelena, OTOH, the fact that she was family (to Regina) was irrelevant. The only reason she didn't get wacked from the get go was because the writers wanted to put Regina on an imaginary high horse of "I'm a hero and heroes don't kill!" BS.  That was their entire reasoning for not killing Zelena then and there in the barn once they got her. But once Zelena served her purpose, what did the writers do with her? They killed her and no one cared! And the same thing was done with Pan, except Pan was killed by Rumple in a murder-suicide so that Rumple could come off as "redeemed" somehow...and then later come back to life, no harm no foul.

 

*sigh* It's just all so stupid and contrived.

Edited December 9, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Mathius]

This is being discussed in the Relationships thread, but fits here as well. Anna's sudden declaration that she would never give up on Ingrid because she was family seemed sudden and out of place. So just because she had read her mother's letter, Anna changed her mind about Ingrid? She was happy enough to de-magic her or trap her in the Urn back in Arendelle.

Actually, yeah, I can buy that the letter made her change her mind. I mean, she already had some care: she was regretful for attempting to hat Ingrid after learning that Ingrid was sincere in wanting to be a family with her and Elsa (though Ingrid keeping her locked up despite her pleas and then trying to turn Elsa against her made that regret disappear) and she was uncomfortable with the potential solution to the Shattered Sight spell of killing Ingrid.

But it was shown that Anna had no idea as to what happened between Ingrid, Helga and Gerda, and she clung to the idea in 4x08 that her mom must have been justified in urning Ingrid. The letter was Gerda confessing the truth about what happened, about how wrong she was, and how her deepest wish was to undo it by releasing Ingrid and restoring Arendelle's memories of her sisters. I think that completely changed Anna's view, broke the wishful thinking she had in regards to her mother, and made her realize just how complex this situation really was, and that the best solution is to stop antagonizing Ingrid and start loving her.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mathius

[Camera One]

It's so difficult to suddenly start loving someone out of the blue, especially someone who did certain not-so-nice things.  On the whole though, I can see how finding out that her mother did love Ingrid would change Anna's view of her and at least she could *try* to treat her as family.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Camera One

[Mathius]

And again, it also helps that not only did she learn that Gerda loved Ingrid, but that Ingrid's descent into villainy started because of a wrong Gerda committed against Ingrid. It doesn't excuse Ingrid's subsequent wrongdoing, as Ingrid herself said during her big redemption, but it is much harder to not attempt to reach out to someone when you learn that they're motivated by a very real harm done to them by your own mother.

In fact, this is almost like an actually sensible, GOOD version of what they tried to do with Eva and Cora! That failed because Cora was actually doing something malicious by deceiving Leopold, and Eva had absolutely zero obligations toward Cora so her "wronging" Cora by telling Leopold the truth falls doubly flat. Here, Ingrid literally did nothing wrong, it was a clears accident and one that was so obviously devastating to her. As her sister, Gerda had an obligation to help Ingird, now more than ever given the state of Ingrid's mental and emotional condition. But Gerda's own fear, prejudice and anger blinded her, and she betrayed Ingrid even after having made a promise to always stand by her. So Ingrid's grevience with Gerda is 100% legitimate, which cannot be said of Cora's grevience with Eva.

[Amerilla]

The dagger.

 

Here's my problem: based on what I know as a member of the audience, Belle using the dagger to banish Rumpel was very satisfying. At the same time, I can't help but notice there's some shaky morality at play.

 

Using the dagger to prevent him from hurting Hook seems to me to be appropriate...sort of like using a stun gun to stop a criminal in effective-but-non-lethal way.

 

Then we get to the Town Line. At this point, the sitution changes. Rumpel is as much Belle's hostage at this moment as he was with Zelena in 3b - he has only as much free will as she allows him to have...which is to say, none. He's completely at her mercy. And she is pissed. Hurt, angry, betrayed, heartbroken. Nothing in Rumpel's consciousness wants to go across that line. She commands him to go, and go forever.

 

And I think that - the commanding that he take those steps back - is where it gets morally squicky for Belle. I would have found it less compromising if she had, say, dropped the dagger and shoved him over the line in her anger.

 

Back in the halcyon days of S1-2a, when they still attempted to write coherent characters, Belle was 100% Team Free Will (if I may borrow from Supernatural). The idea of her father or anyone else choosing her path for her was anathama to her, and she's told Rumpel more than once that he, too, can choose his own path. As much as the bastard might have deserved what he got, I've come to see this as something that is completely against her nature.

 

On a better-written show, I would argue that it's an argument that the dagger corrupts anyone who holds it, who holds power over the Dark One and whatever meat suit the Dark One happens to be wearing (thanks again, Supernatural). But it's this show, so, it was the shortest distance between plot points.

[Rumsy4]

I think she should have commanded him to never harm anyone ever again directly or indirectly. That would have effectively defanged him.

I think Belle saw the Hat and realized that Rumple had been sucking people into the Hat to power it up. She must also have figured out that he killed Zelena. In a way, her ordering him across the town line was a punishment. Of course, they should have made all that clear. This almost seemed like she was punishing him for choosing power over her.

[KingOfHearts]

I thought Belle did the right thing. She was saving the town from a murderous threat. I know she was emotionally a wreck at the time, but I don't think it was just punishment. This was her "hero" moment. At this point she didn't see Rumple - she saw the Dark One. She saw the terrors he can inflict on people in EF, and now knowing his redemption was a farce, she couldn't let him continue.

[kili]

And I think that - the commanding that he take those steps back - is where it gets morally squicky for Belle. I would have found it less compromising if she had, say, dropped the dagger and shoved him over the line in her anger.

 

I disagree. She would be an idiot to drop the dagger at that moment. She had seconds before seen Rumple freeze Emma and Snow, so she knows that before she can take half a step toward him to push him over the line, he's going to freeze her too. The audience also knows that is true because he's recently done exactly that to her to play dagger switch-e-roo.

 

Rumple is a very dangerous man and she's always known that. She's been under the mistaken belief that her good influence and his pure heart have convinced him to walk the straight and narrow. But, she comes upon a tableau where he has been lying to her all along, he is about to kill somebody and he has frozen the town savoir. It's not difficult for her to realize that his good behaviour has been an illusion and he is still dangerous.

 

In this case, the dagger was like  a gun. If Belle had come upon somebody who could easily over-power her, was about to kill somebody and had already incapacitated another powerful person, I wouldn't recommend that she put down the gun to shove the villain into a jail cell. I'd tell her to keep the gun on him until she he had gone into the jail cell.

 

There is no jail cell in Storybrooke to hold Rumple. No way to stop him from using his powers. The only solution to prevent him from harming her and others  is to strip him of his powers and that can only happen if he crosses the line. She was smart to use the only tool in the town's arsenal to get him to a place where people would be safer from him.

 

What Belle did took an enormous amount of courage and was the right thing to do.  Granted, the dagger is more powerful than a gun, but what she did kept the most number of people safe. She didn't order him to kill himself - she just put him in jail. A very nice jail where he is free to do whatever he wants, provided it isn't magic.

[YaddaYadda]

I think she should have commanded him to never harm anyone ever again directly or indirectly. That would have effectively defanged him.

I think Belle saw the Hat and realized that Rumple had been sucking people into the Hat to power it up. She must also have figured out that he killed Zelena. In a way, her ordering him across the town line was a punishment. Of course, they should have made all that clear. This almost seemed like she was punishing him for choosing power over her.

I can see the argument that Belle was punishing him because he chose power over her.  When I re-watched the Belle-centric episode and after everything we know now, I've actually been wondering if Belle hasn't known or suspected the dagger deal all along.  She went to Arendelle where she found out about the hat and the dark sorcerer from Anna.  Then Belle comes back to the Enchanted Forest and she tells her father they should summon the dark sorcerer she found out about during her journey and he's like well no, we never should and she tells him they should ask for help from Rumple.  So it's not like she's some doe eyed innocent person who just stumbled upon the truth just like that.  In retrospect, she must have known that Rumple knew Anna and he was lying when she "commanded" him to tell Emma the truth in 403.

 

These are all my assumptions and I don't know if other people have zeroed in on this as well.  But if this is remotely true, it doesn't say much about Belle's character, but her words at the town line were true when she said she had lost herself, so brownie points for some self-awareness.  She did do the right thing by banishing him.  

[Shanna Marie]

Back in the halcyon days of S1-2a, when they still attempted to write coherent characters, Belle was 100% Team Free Will (if I may borrow from Supernatural). The idea of her father or anyone else choosing her path for her was anathama to her, and she's told Rumpel more than once that he, too, can choose his own path. As much as the bastard might have deserved what he got, I've come to see this as something that is completely against her nature.

On the one hand, I could say yeah, this was equivalent to her father forcing her to cross the town line so she'd lose her memories.

 

On the other hand, there's this:

There is no jail cell in Storybrooke to hold Rumple. No way to stop him from using his powers. The only solution to prevent him from harming her and others  is to strip him of his powers and that can only happen if he crosses the line. She was smart to use the only tool in the town's arsenal to get him to a place where people would be safer from him.

If she'd put down the dagger and let him have control of himself, there's no way he wouldn't have zapped her to wipe her memories so she wouldn't know he'd betrayed her. He wouldn't have let her push him over the town line. What she did was as close as they can come to putting someone as powerful as he is in prison. When you think about it, prison is removing someone's free will, since they wouldn't choose on their own to enter a cell and be locked up. They're forced in. That's what this amounted to. He was an ongoing threat who can't be contained. The dagger is a two-way vulnerability because he could probably find a loophole to exploit in any order she gave using the dagger.

[Mari]

This almost seemed like she was punishing him for choosing power over her.

 

 

 

I can see the argument that Belle was punishing him because he chose power over her.  . . .

 

These are all my assumptions and I don't know if other people have zeroed in on this as well.  But if this is remotely true, it doesn't say much about Belle's character, but her words at the town line were true when she said she had lost herself, so brownie points for some self-awareness.  She did do the right thing by banishing him.  

I don't think  was the only reason she was angry at Rumple and banished him, but I do think it was a significant amount of it.  Belle has seen Rumple hurt a number of people--she's seen him threaten people, torture people, kill people--a lot of it in Storybrooke, as well.  None of that had a long-term impact on Belle's opinion of Rumple.  He was loving and kind to her, and apparently had fooled her into thinking she was more important to him than power, and that made him good-hearted. 

 

From what I saw on-screen, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Belle's self-image was tied into her ability to love what no one else could love, see what no one else could see, and, basically, tame the "monster".  She held the monster's leash, saw something lovable in him, and that made  of them special--him for his power, and her for standing in-between him and the world, and rescuing the world.  Discovering that all that was an illusion, and she was a fool?  That had to hurt.

 

I guess I was never a believer that Belle was a particularly good person.  I don't think she's evil, or a villain, but her wanting to be a hero never seemed to be about helping people, and more about being a Hero!  Most people don't outright state "I should be a hero."  It's a rather vain and self-glorifying thing to say for most people who aren't Superman.  Most people say "I need to help.  I can help, so it's important I do."  And, well, there's a difference.

 

When you follow it up with all the times she's been just fine with Rumple hurting other people, because he had a good heart because he was kind to her and she was more important than power?    How is that a truly, deeply good person, rather than a vain, childish person who sees "good" as "what I like"? 

 

Could these events have opened her eyes, and help her grow into a truly, deeply good person?  Hopefully.  But in the previous 3 1/2 seasons, she hasn't been one.

[YaddaYadda]

I think she realized that he did not changed.  Even when he was at the town line he was going on about how there's nothing wrong with wanting power and he said "I" and then he corrected himself to "we".

 

I mean that whole scene was a complete parallel to her telling Hook how Rumple has good in him and waxing poetic about her psycho boyfriend while Hook is telling her how he murdered his first wife.  I can rag on the writing as much as I want, but these moments seem to be beyond planned.  Belle has not been a hero...ever or I don't recall a moment where she actually was.  But she's also someone who doesn't have a support system and she basically drop kicked her father out of her life, so that relationship might sort of still exist since he gave her away to Rumple in last year's finale (why Moe?  Why?), but she is another character who has no one to look out for her.  Hook sort of tried to do that, but he also sort of owed her after the way he treated her.

[KingOfHearts]

This what I think this was going through her head. She believed originally that Rumple was simply a cursed man who lost his way. She took it upon herself to "cure" him because she believed he was changeable, but more importantly because she wanted to be a hero and rid the realm of a great evil.

All this time she thought her work was paying off and he was redeeming himself. But as it turns out, the last couple of years of her life were a lie. Finding out about the dagger confirmed that redeeming him was not going to work. She had to use her alternative - get rid of him. She really didn't have any other option.

I do believe she loved him, but the dagger reveal not only halted Rumple's path to goodness, but their romantic relationship as well.

Edited December 17, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Rumsy4]

I don't think  was the only reason she was angry at Rumple and banished him, but I do think it was a significant amount of it.  Belle has seen Rumple hurt a number of people--she's seen him threaten people, torture people, kill people--a lot of it in Storybrooke, as well.  None of that had a long-term impact on Belle's opinion of Rumple.  He was loving and kind to her, and apparently had fooled her into thinking she was more important to him than power, and that made him good-hearted. 

 

I think that's partly it. He has treated her badly in the past, though. He has shoved her, sent her away, and flat out told her that he loved power more than he loved her. He was also willing to let her die with the rest of Storybrooke when he thought Neal was dead. But later on, she also saw him sacrifice himself to Pan, and fooled herself into thinking he did it to save Storybrooke. Neal called her out on it and said that he had done it to save his loved ones--himself and Belle--from Pan. But Belle took it as evidence that he had truly changed and become a hero or whatever, especially when he gave her the Dagger as "proof" that he was no longer a power-hungry control-freak. Could she have made him stay in Storybrooke, commanded him to not hurt anyone, but not banished him? I don't know. Rumple may have found himself a loophole. 

[Shanna Marie]

I guess I was never a believer that Belle was a particularly good person.  I don't think she's evil, or a villain, but her wanting to be a hero never seemed to be about helping people, and more about being a Hero!  Most people don't outright state "I should be a hero."  It's a rather vain and self-glorifying thing to say for most people who aren't Superman.  Most people say "I need to help.  I can help, so it's important I do."  And, well, there's a difference.

 

When you follow it up with all the times she's been just fine with Rumple hurting other people, because he had a good heart because he was kind to her and she was more important than power?    How is that a truly, deeply good person, rather than a vain, childish person who sees "good" as "what I like"?

That's why I've never been too terribly worked up over what Hook did to her. Yeah, it was crummy, but when you align yourself with someone evil, refuse to hold him accountable for being evil, blame his victims for making him be evil, and continue hanging around him, there's a chance that you'll get caught in the crossfire or end up facing the consequences of the evil person's actions because of your association. She didn't deserve what happened, but it shouldn't have been a huge surprise that she might be hurt when she's clinging to someone who has hurt so many people and being unsympathetic to his victims. If she'd distanced herself from Rumple when she learned the truth about what he did to his wife, she might not have been hurt at all because Hook might have figured that turning her against Rumple with the truth was the best revenge.

 

The wanting to be a hero, vs. wanting to help or wanting to do the right thing, is just a touch better than demanding a happy ending -- if that's your goal, then you're not really there yet. Wanting to be a hero implies some sort of desire for self satisfaction or public recognition. I don't think that makes her bad, but it's a sort of naive view of the world, like wanting to live out one of her own storybooks so she can be like that rather than a true desire to make the world better. That self image and need for recognition also probably has a lot to do with her clinging to Rumple, because she must be a really good person if she can love the unlovable, and a true saint if she can turn him around into being good.

 

Saving Hook and then kicking Rumple out of town might be the first heroic thing she's done, since I don't think she cared what others thought or how she felt. It was just something that had to be done, even if it was at great cost to her.

 

I have some thoughts on the "villainous motive" issue, but I have to analyze further.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I don't think she's evil, or a villain, but her wanting to be a hero never seemed to be about helping people, and more about being a Hero!

 

This harkens back to Regina a bit. Neither of them want to be good because they're compassionate towards people, but because they want to be "heroes". They want names for themselves and all the glory that comes with the title. Belle isn't nearly as rotten as Regina, but their definitions of "hero" are similar.

 

Ironically, I believe this is what sets heroes apart from everyone else. Heroes are those thinking of others and sacrificing themselves for others, as opposed to always trying to get what they think they should have.

Edited December 17, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Serena]

I think the main difference between Regina and Belle (you know... apart from the 12343 obvious ones) is that Regina wants to be a "hero" because she thinks it'll get her what she wants. So being a "hero" is a step towards her happy ending, or whatever. While I don't think Belle believes that being a hero will get her something. She just wants to be one because... she wants to feel good about herself? But it's not Doing Good that achieves that for her, it's being a Hero.

[ShadowFacts]

 

That's why I've never been too terribly worked up over what Hook did to her. Yeah, it was crummy, but when you align yourself with someone evil, refuse to hold him accountable for being evil, blame his victims for making him be evil, and continue hanging around him, there's a chance that you'll get caught in the crossfire or end up facing the consequences of the evil person's actions because of your association. She didn't deserve what happened, but it shouldn't have been a huge surprise that she might be hurt when she's clinging to someone who has hurt so many people and being unsympathetic to his victims. If she'd distanced herself from Rumple when she learned the truth about what he did to his wife, she might not have been hurt at all because Hook might have figured that turning her against Rumple with the truth was the best revenge.

 

To me, Hook's attempts to kill her or hurt her (starting off in Regina's tower, when Belle was asleep) were more than crummy.  Not only did Belle not deserve that, I don't believe in the kind of guilt by association when someone gets caught in the crossfire of other peoples' bad actions and that's too damn bad for them, they should have been smarter.   At the time of Hook's misdeeds against Belle, he was on a straight revenge quest, had not gotten insight into the futility of it, and didn't care about the finer points of turning her against Rumple.  She's paid a pretty hefty price for her misplaced belief in her own ability to change Rumpel.  And saved the life of someone who tried to off her more than once.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I think the main difference between Regina and Belle (you know... apart from the 12343 obvious ones) is that Regina wants to be a "hero" because she thinks it'll get her what she wants. So being a "hero" is a step towards her happy ending, or whatever. While I don't think Belle believes that being a hero will get her something. She just wants to be one because... she wants to feel good about herself? But it's not Doing Good that achieves that for her, it's being a Hero.

 

Well, for me, being called a Hero is what Belle wants, while for Regina it's just a stepping stone. My point is that they want to do heroic deeds for ulterior motives rather than to help people in need.

Edited December 18, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Mathius]

I agree that ShadowFacts that while Belle's behavior was far from morally ideal and crossed into victim blaming, that still isn't justification for Hook attacking her, especially his first attack in the prison cell which was completely uncalled for. Since Belle and Hook seem to be getting along better in 4B, I hope some sort of conversation like that happens where Hook more genuinely apologizes, she apologizes for her attitude toward him in turn, and he counters that it still doesn't excuse what he did to her and that he can only hope to continue making it up to her now. It would be a nice, mature conversation for them to have.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Mathius

[Shanna Marie]

To me, Hook's attempts to kill her or hurt her (starting off in Regina's tower, when Belle was asleep) were more than crummy.  Not only did Belle not deserve that, I don't believe in the kind of guilt by association when someone gets caught in the crossfire of other peoples' bad actions and that's too damn bad for them, they should have been smarter.

Hook was in the wrong because two wrongs don't make a right -- no matter what Rumple did to him, it doesn't justify him targeting Belle in revenge -- but there are also consequences to the company you choose to keep. If you choose to associate with bad and dangerous people who have hurt a lot of other people, you're putting yourself in danger. The analogy that keeps coming up for Belle is a gangster's moll -- she may not have committed any of the crimes the gangster is responsible for, but she knows about his crimes. She knows he's attacked the loved ones of other gangsters. She's snarked at them about deserving what they got. If the enemies retaliate by attacking her, she may not be to blame, but she can't really claim total innocence. When you hang around with someone who hurts people (and enjoys doing so), there's a good chance you're going to get hurt. And are you totally innocent if you stand by someone who has caused such hurt?

 

Since Belle and Hook seem to be getting along better in 4B, I hope some sort of conversation like that happens where Hook more genuinely apologizes, she apologizes for her attitude toward him in turn, and he counters that it still doesn't excuse what he did to her and that he can only hope to continue making it up to her now. It would be a nice, mature conversation for them to have.

I definitely would like to see this. He owes her his life right now, even though she didn't really do it for his sake. He also owes her an apology for not telling her about the dagger sooner, whether or not she'd have believed him, and she in turn owes him an apology for misjudging him enough that she wouldn't have believed him, to which his response needs to be that she wasn't entirely wrong about him at that time, but he's trying to change.

[ShadowFacts]

I get what you're saying, but Belle really wasn't analagous to a gangster's moll when he first tried to kill her.  She had been captured by Regina after falling for him during the housekeeper phase.  She was delusional and an apologist, but nothing more.  And if she had a vengeful heart the way that Hook initially did (and for a very long time), Hook might not have gotten his heart back.  Rumpel is the criminal, the villain.  She indeed got hurt more than once for her poor choice of standing by him, but actual violent criminal acts were the province of her boyfriend/then husband, and the Captain.  I judge them both more harshly. 

[kili]

I get what you're saying, but Belle really wasn't analagous to a gangster's moll when he first tried to kill her. She had been captured by Regina after falling for him during the housekeeper phase.

 

I don't know if I agree....I gave a little shiver when she asked in a delighted voice how his trip went to Camelot. Dude wasn't going to the mall. She knew his reputation for getting things from the start. Surely, she must have known that somebody suffered for Rumple to get his gauntlet. And by the time she gets kidnapped by Regina, she had cleaned up after his flailing of Robin.

 

While she may have convinced him not to kill Robin, surely she knows she is not living with Ghandi.

 

I'm not saying she deserved to be imprisoned or killed or anything, but she is deciding to ally herself with a very evil man. She's like those woman who date the serial killers in jail. She's going to reform him. Sure...

Edited December 18, 2014 by kili

[Faemonic]

He was also willing to let her die with the rest of Storybrooke when he thought Neal was dead. But later on, she also saw him sacrifice himself to Pan, and fooled herself into thinking he did it to save Storybrooke. Neal called her out on it and said that he had done it to save his loved ones--himself and Belle--from Pan. But Belle took it as evidence that he had truly changed and become a hero or whatever

 

That was Lacey, though. And even if Belle took it as evidence of Rumple's redemption, she still said that she loved the parts of him that belonged to the darkness, sometimes the best book has the dustiest cover... I don't know!

 

especially when he gave her the Dagger as "proof" that he was no longer a power-hungry control-freak. Could she have made him stay in Storybrooke, commanded him to not hurt anyone, but not banished him? I don't know. Rumple may have found himself a loophole.

 

 

The thing is, while I have serious doubts about Belle's perceptiveness as a character and consideration for other people...she did interrupt a ritual where Rumple was going to crush Hook's heart and channel the screaming souls of an entire convent into re-affirming his...autonomy, I guess, or something.

 

So if all that registered, then she can't just let him run around being shady and playing Regina, Emma, and the next upstart magic-user to wreak havoc on the town. Rumple's magic has got to be neutered and he can't be around people. And the banishment Rumple got is probably better for everyone (including Rumple) than being Pandora-Boxed, or Urned, or Hatted. Or mirrored. Or MadHatted.

 

I mean, it's not like Rumple volunteered to get into magic addiction therapy with Archie, like Regina had, and see how long that lasted even with Emma's support. I don't know if Belle would know that, and compare, like, uh-oh, can't be honest with how betrayed she feels if it's going to push Rumple back into his magic addiction... But, I think crossing Rumple over the town line was a good decision knowing what we (kinda sorta maaaybe) know about the magic system, community dynamics, and psychology of some types of characters in this show.

[Rumsy4]

That was Lacey, though. And even if Belle took it as evidence of Rumple's redemption, she still said that she loved the parts of him that belonged to the darkness, sometimes the best book has the dustiest cover... I don't know!

The thing is, while I have serious doubts about Belle's perceptiveness as a character and consideration for other people...she did interrupt a ritual where Rumple was going to crush Hook's heart and channel the screaming souls of an entire convent into re-affirming his...autonomy, I guess, or something.

I don't get what you meant by the Lacey comment. That was still Belle. The "dark parts" speech is still incomprehensible to me.

Belle did not know Rumple had "hatted" the fairies. Her banishment of Rumple was a powerful scene, but it would have had more depth if we understood how much she knew. Did she realize he had killed Zelena after all? That he had known Anna? That he had in fact hatted the fairies? About the deal he had made with Ingrid? That he meant to take her from Storybrooke for good? Did she understand that Rumple was trying to cleave himself from the Dagger?

Her banishment of Rumple was satisfying to watch, but by now, Belle should have realized that Rumple was resilient enough to find a way back. At the very least, she should have commanded him to never hurt anyone again. I'm still not 100% sure banishment wasn't a split second decision considering we don't know how much Belle understood in that moment beyond the fact that he had given her the fake Dagger, and was apparently about to crush Hook's heart. She ought to have demanded an explanation from him at Dagger-point.

[Faemonic]

I don't get what you meant by the Lacey comment. That was still Belle. The "dark parts" speech is still incomprehensible to me.

I mean that Rumple might not have been willing to let Belle die along with himself and the rest of Storybrooke when he thought that Neal was dead, because Belle was already (to his knowledge) dead.

 

I can't help but contrast that with Hook, who was unwilling, uncharacteristically, to let the rest of Storybrooke die when he thought that Neal was dead. He pleaded with The Dark One Enabler of Shattered Sight Curse-Casters for the entire town, too. If they really wanted to demonstrate a double-villainy backslide like on The Prestige level, couldn't they have made Hook less of a puppy? The most Hook has done is flash his eyes in defiance and set his jaw. And make an incisive pun.

 

Her banishment of Rumple was a powerful scene, but it would have had more depth if we understood how much she knew. Did she realize he had killed Zelena after all? That he had known Anna? That he had in fact hatted the fairies? About the deal he had made with Ingrid? That he meant to take her from Storybrooke for good? Did she understand that Rumple was trying to cleave himself from the Dagger?

 

Probably only that last bit.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Faemonic

[Rumsy4]

I mean that Rumple might not have been willing to let Belle die along with himself and the rest of Storybrooke when he thought that Neal was dead, because Belle was already (to his knowledge) dead.

Even after Blue's potion restored Belle back, Rumple didn't rush to help Regina stop the Trigger. He just finally accepted that Belle deserved to die as herself.

Probably only that last bit.

I don't know how she could have known that.

[YaddaYadda]

Rumple didn't care anymore the moment he thought Neal had died.  And if Neal had been around, I think he would have tried to figure a way to get him and his son out of there.  It's not like he cares about the rest of the population anyway.

[Rumsy4]

But Neal would've forced Rumple to save everyone. It's not like Rumple doesn't know right from wrong, but he didn't care. Neal was his leash. I wonder how long that would have lasted if Neal hadn't died. If Hook was not around, would Rumple have been tempted to sacrifice his son to cleave himself from the Dagger? I'm not sure..,

[Crimson Belle]

But Neal would've forced Rumple to save everyone. It's not like Rumple doesn't know right from wrong, but he didn't care. Neal was his leash. I wonder how long that would have lasted if Neal hadn't died. If Hook was not around, would Rumple have been tempted to sacrifice his son to cleave himself from the Dagger? I'm not sure..,

 

I'm not sure if Neal would have forced him to save everyone, or just Emma and Henry.

[Shanna Marie]

I've been thinking about that "villainous motives" thing the writers mentioned in interviews, where they were saying that Rumple's actions to separate himself (I refuse to use the word "cleave") from the dagger weren't really from villainous motives but because he was traumatized by Zelena controlling him.

 

I suppose motive does matter to some extent because it suggests the potential pattern of future behavior in some cases -- the more specific and understandable the motive for a particular bad deed, the less chance that the deed will be repeated. And it may be possible to put together some kind of formula calculating the degree of victimhood, the degree of selfishness, the degree of harm to others, the degree of sadism (enjoying the harm to others), so that someone who was wronged and isn't trying to harm numerous people and isn't just out for himself is less villainous than someone who gets the same results but is deliberately hurting others and enjoying it. But that can get pretty dangerous. For an extreme example, if his writings and speeches were at all accurate about his feelings, Hitler was doing all the stuff he did for the welfare of the German people, protecting them from those he thought had betrayed and wronged them. If you're looking at motive, then that ranks him better than Regina, who was out for revenge for a personal wrong.

 

Where motive matters most is when an act that isn't bad in and of itself ends up causing harm. Snow telling Cora about Daniel because she wanted to get Regina in trouble and hoped Cora would punish her would have been different than Snow telling Cora about Daniel because she wanted Regina to be able to be with her true love and thought Cora would understand. Emma bringing Marian back to Storybrooke just to screw up Regina's relationship would have been different from Emma bringing Marian back just to save a life (though no matter what, saving an innocent person from execution isn't wrong).

 

I think it's more likely that negative motives could darken an otherwise good deed than that good but misguided motives could lighten a bad deed that causes harm. Rumple finding the portal for the Arendelle gang to go home was good, but he only did it to get Anna out of the way before Belle could discover his lies, which made it a bad deed. On the flip side, I don't care how traumatized he was and how he was just trying to get personal autonomy, doing so at the cost of other lives and with total disregard for the impact on other people is just plain wrong. He was willing to let the whole town be destroyed, ruined the chance they had at protecting the town, was removing Belle's free will, wanted to destroy Emma, did do whatever he did to the fairies and was planning to kill Hook (who, though hardly an innocent in general terms was innocent here in that he wasn't responsible for Rumple's situation). I don't care what his motives were, those actions were villainous and can't be excused. It's not that he didn't realize harm would come to others. He knew it would and didn't care. It was selfish because what he wanted mattered more to him than the lives of others.

[Mari]

I've been thinking about that "villainous motives" thing the writers mentioned in interviews, where they were saying that Rumple's actions to separate himself (I refuse to use the word "cleave") from the dagger weren't really from villainous motives but because he was traumatized by Zelena controlling him.

 

I suppose motive does matter to some extent because it suggests the potential pattern of future behavior in some cases -- the more specific and understandable the motive for a particular bad deed, the less chance that the deed will be repeated.

True.

 

The thing is, until the comments about taking over the world, Rumple's motive could easily have been that between being combined with Neal, Neal's death, and Zelena's controlling him, he'd been traumatized and would do almost anything to keep being powerless and unable to protect himself and the people (okay, Belle and sometimes Henry) he cared about from that ever, ever happening again.

 

That would have been a reasonable and sympathetic motive.  It wouldn't excuse hatting the Apprentice and the Fairies, or trying to hat Emma, but it would have humanized him a little, and it would also make any reform on his part more reasonable and plausible;  he'd had a momentary break, and that people can eventually get past in an acceptable way.

 

They lost it the usual way, I guess.  They refused to give us any insight into Rumple's thought processes--too kitchen sink, I guess--and took him too far.  The little insight they gave us was solely power; and out of nowhere he decided to, well, go the Leonard Cohen route with Manhattan, besides all the shady shenanigans with Belle. 

 

I think they get too excited about making their villains dramatic, and forget that if they want their villains to not seem pure mustache-twirly evil that doesn't usually work.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I've been thinking about that "villainous motives" thing the writers mentioned in interviews, where they were saying that Rumple's actions to separate himself (I refuse to use the word "cleave") from the dagger weren't really from villainous motives but because he was traumatized by Zelena controlling him.

 

They lost it the usual way, I guess.  They refused to give us any insight into Rumple's thought processes--too kitchen sink, I guess--and took him too far.  The little insight they gave us was solely power; and out of nowhere he decided to, well, go the Leonard Cohen route with Manhattan, besides all the shady shenanigans with Belle.

 

If they were trying to tell us Rumple was just traumatized, they did a very bad job at it. I can remember Rumple mentioning Zelena once in passing, but that was it. His muahahaing in front of Hook and total indifference to the fate of everyone else told a completely different story. The guy was after power, first and foremost. If he wanted to be separated from the dagger, he could have just left town. But no - he wanted his cake and to eat it too.

 

 

I suppose motive does matter to some extent because it suggests the potential pattern of future behavior in some cases -- the more specific and understandable the motive for a particular bad deed, the less chance that the deed will be repeated.

Intent is everything. That's why Rumple and Regina's so-called good deeds are worthless in the end. They do it for themselves, not other people. I honestly didn't see any good intent from Rumple through this whole thing.

Edited December 20, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Rumple only mentioned how he was affected by Zelena once, and that was in "Heroes and Villains".  Which is way too late.  

 

The thing is, until the comments about taking over the world, Rumple's motive could easily have been that between being combined with Neal, Neal's death, and Zelena's controlling him, he'd been traumatized and would do almost anything to keep being powerless and unable to protect himself and the people (okay, Belle and sometimes Henry) he cared about from that ever, ever happening again.

 

That would have been a reasonable and sympathetic motive.  It wouldn't excuse hatting the Apprentice and the Fairies, or trying to hat Emma, but it would have humanized him a little, and it would also make any reform on his part more reasonable and plausible;  he'd had a momentary break, and that people can eventually get past in an acceptable way.

 

They lost it the usual way, I guess.  They refused to give us any insight into Rumple's thought processes--too kitchen sink, I guess--and took him too far.  The little insight they gave us was solely power; and out of nowhere he decided to, well, go the Leonard Cohen route with Manhattan, besides all the shady shenanigans with Belle. 

 

I think they get too excited about making their villains dramatic, and forget that if they want their villains to not seem pure mustache-twirly evil that doesn't usually work.

 

It's their usual of wanting things both ways.  They WANTED to have Rumple be mustache-twirly evil all season thus far, since it's fun to write for.  I'm just afraid they will backload-heavy all the regret stuff right before they reunite him and Belle, and then expect us to accept it.  Clearly, the writers don't think what Rumple did was all that bad.  Apparently, the worse thing was just keeping it a secret from Belle.  So they won't rectify a problem that they can't recognize.

[Dani-Ellie]

Clearly, the writers don't think what Rumple did was all that bad.  Apparently, the worse thing was just keeping it a secret from Belle.  So they won't rectify a problem that they can't recognize.

 

Which is bullshit because regardless of his reasons, he tried to de facto kill the heroine of the show. Maybe they can skirt around it if the hat doesn't kill whom it sucks in, but that's not the point. Rumple has no clue what becomes of the people in the hat. He doesn't care. And he was certainly gloating to Hook as if Emma was going to die. Again with the intent mattering and not the outcome.

[Mari]

Which is bullshit because regardless of his reasons, he tried to de facto kill the heroine of the show..

Sheesh, Dani-Ellie, you're thinking there should be consequences?  It's not like he tried to hat Regina.  Yeah, Emma's the heroine, but it's not like she's Regina.  :)

Edited December 20, 2014 by Mari

[Camera One]

A hero is gracious in the event of attempted murder.  Take it as a compliment, as Bette Davis says.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Camera One

[KAOS Agent]

There was also the part where he was gloating about Milah's death too. I don't care how much they want to play his PTSD or whatever, his murder of Milah does not fall under any of his issues related to Zelena which makes his comments about her death and even Emma's expected death so gross. I can understand that Rumpel had problems relating to his death, resurrection and subsequent imprisonment and could appreciate how his actions to make sure it never happened again fall somewhat differently on the moral continuum than simple villainous world domination. However, his torturous actions with Hook and his comments regarding his dead wife don't work with this need to separate himself from the dagger. It was just out and out villainy. They really pushed that in the first Hook/Rumpel scene in "Heroes and Villains" when they had Rumpel squeezing Hook's heart for no reason other than that he was getting off on it. 

[jhlipton]

They won't rectify a problem that they can't recognize.

 

Isn't that the motto of this forum?

[Shanna Marie]

Intent is everything. That's why Rumple and Regina's so-called good deeds are worthless in the end. They do it for themselves, not other people. I honestly didn't see any good intent from Rumple through this whole thing.

I think intent is more likely to turn a good thing negative than to turn a bad thing positive. The good deeds done for the wrong reasons are ruined by those wrong reasons. It's really hard to make a bad deed good with good intentions. The loved ones of the people who were killed don't care about the motives unless maybe it was a case of them being collateral damage for saving more people (like a hostage being killed when taking out a terrorist before the terrorist can kill dozens more). And good intentions do matter when someone is unintentionally harmed by a deed that's not bad -- the good intentions turn a neutral deed good, bad intentions make a neutral deed bad.

 

I suppose you could say that Rumple's motives are understandable and might even qualify as being for the greater good, since his power under the control of an evil person is bad for everyone, as seen with Zelena. Unfortunately, we got no indication that he was doing it for anyone other than himself, and it sounded like he was as interested in maintaining or even boosting his power as he was in freeing himself from the dagger. If what he really wanted was to be free of the dagger so he couldn't be controlled and couldn't be turned into someone else's weapon, then he could have chosen to leave town and talked to Belle about it instead of making the decision for her, or he could have let a True Love's Kiss work to free him entirely from the Dark One curse.

 

The idea that he didn't want to be controlled by anyone else fell apart when he turned Hook into his puppet. It would have been a lot more understandable if he just took the heart to use it when it was time, but he enjoyed forcing Hook to do his will, and he made Hook do his dirty work of hatting the fairies and trying to kidnap Henry. If it was really about not being able to bear being controlled, then he shouldn't have turned around and done it to someone else, and he should have taken on more of the personal cost involved in doing this. The fact that he did torture Hook by controlling him and used him to do the work while gloating about it ruins any "good" intentions he might have had.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I suppose you could say that Rumple's motives are understandable and might even qualify as being for the greater good, since his power under the control of an evil person is bad for everyone, as seen with Zelena.

But here's the catch - he's going to use his power to take over the world. He's going to inflict the same terrors he did in EF, just in another realm with an even unfairer advantage. He wasn't going to go live with Belle and poof cupcakes once in a while. He was planning on conquest, and probably killing people since he had no problem killing Hook or whoever got in his way. That tells me its not just running away from a dagger, but trading one evil for another. He'd have to depend on the hat just like the dagger, and with that comes a whole new crop of problems. He wasn't being sensible at all.

 

PTSD? Get real, writers. Pre-Zelena Rumple is no different from Post-Zelena Rumple. They're both bloodthirsty power maniacs.

Edited December 21, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Replying in villains.

[Serena]

Claiming that Rumple's motives weren't bad was simply bullshit. If he didn't want to be under the dagger's control, he just needed to get out of SB. We know you can bring money outside (Regina gave Robin enough to get by), so he could have magicked up enough money for him and Belle to live in luxury for the rest of their lives, gotten out of Storybrooke, and had nothing to fear from the dagger for the rest of his days. But he didn't.

[Camera One]

To these writers, magic is like alcohol or drugs, so that adds a layer of sympathy.  Or not.  If they want to use that analogy, Rumple's actions are more like robbing liquor stores to support his habit, where people are hurt and there is a lot of collateral damage.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Camera One

[Mari]

To these writers, magic is like alcohol or drugs, so that adds a layer of sympathy.  Or not.

Would that make Emma a drug store?

[Mathius]

But here's the catch - he's going to use his power to take over the world. He's going to inflict the same terrors he did in EF, just in another realm with an even unfairer advantage. He wasn't going to go live with Belle and poof cupcakes once in a while. He was planning on conquest, and probably killing people since he had no problem killing Hook or whoever got in his way. That tells me its not just running away from a dagger, but trading one evil for another. He'd have to depend on the hat just like the dagger, and with that comes a whole new crop of problems. He wasn't being sensible at all.

 

PTSD? Get real, writers. Pre-Zelena Rumple is no different from Post-Zelena Rumple. They're both bloodthirsty power maniacs.

THIS. Adam and Eddy claiming his motives "weren't villainous" when, by his own admission, he wanted to have the whole world at his mercy. That is textbook villainy and just makes it even more clear how disconnected A&E are from what they put on screen.