Out of curiosity, how would you see a Cinder redemption to work out? Because I can't really see Cinder backing down at this point. I can kinda see an empathetic ending for Cinder if it played out like Nevermore wants to do for Adam (always parallels there). Like, yes she dies, but it's a tragedy that they couldn't talk her down. But that feels like you'd need more time with a redeemed Emerald to reach that level from our heroes, so idk maybe redemption in death turning on Salem is possible?
when i think of a cinder redemption, i don't expect—or even really want—it to be cinder being all buddy-buddy with team rwby and co with everything forgiven in a blink of an eye. that's not interesting to me. for me, the most important bit is that cinder is free, free to make her informed choices and to do so without the shackles of the past, i.e. that running is all that she'll ever do.
and while that could translate into a death that's treated as a tragedy, i just. . . at this point, it would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.
the thing is, cinder has never (to our knowledge) been truly free. she's gone from one abusive situation to another and yet another, exchanging a shock collar to a grimm arm. the one person she actually trusted broke that trust, and decided to go by the book rather than help the abused child-slave and essentially deemed her irredeemable for killing her abusers.
her theme, called 'the truth', literally ends with "the truth is no one's ever loved you."
this would all be fine and dandy, if the writers held every character to the same standards, and followed through with the "always go by the book"—but that's not the case.
before i go to the next section that is going to feel like a massive tangent (but i swear it will make sense), it is important to note: huntsmen and huntresses have a license for a reason, it is what allows them to actually act as hunters and to use their weapons, with rules in place that, if they so happen to break them (e.g. endangering civilians, public property destruction, etc), they may lose their license.
so. with that out of the way.
ruby stops a dust robbery, beating up henchmen and chasing down roman without a license. blake and sun, chased by roman in a paladin, decide that a busy highway with bunch of civilians on it is the best place to fight him rather than seeking a less civilian-filled area. ozpin allows team rwby to go on a mission that wasn't for first-year students to begin with instead of sending a professionals to scout the area, during which they kept throwing white fang members off the train without a lick of care for their wellbeing. team rwby and co steal a military airship all the while temporarily shutting down argus' cct support tower, putting the city in vulnerable position.
i could go on, but the main point here is: the heroes keep breaking the rules and laws and never get called out for it, because their cause is seen as good. they're justified, either because their goal is to help / save people, or because they're being. . protected by powerful people. idk.
whether you agree or disagree with this is irrelevant; what matters is that this is the stage the writers have set: it's okay to act outside the law, break the rules, etc. as long as you're doing it for a good cause.
in that sense, it's difficult to agree with rhodes' decision as being the right one for following the law, as it is difficult to believe that cinder was wrong to kill her abusers—to do so would mean that certain characters get to play by different rules simply because they're part of a special clique with powerful friends who can cover their actions up, that things like "hope" are only for those who didn't suffer """too much""" during their childhood and actually had people to support them.
all that cinder didn't have.
so like. at this point in time, with everything the writers have set-up and said the show's theme to be, how they've described ruby as someone who sees the best in people and wants to make the world a better place, with cinder being the epitome of a character failed by society due to the amount of focus she's gotten, it's like. . .
either they try to bridge the gap and make it clear that there are no "sides" as far as who has to play by the rules and who doesn't goes, or they fully commit to the idea that life is great when you're part of the clique or have connections to it, and if that's not your situation, then sucks to be you, should have thought of that before you were born!
i hope this makes sense, because i don't even know anymore lmao.
but also: i'd be totally fine with cinder faking her death at the end and then going on a journey to, idk, find herself or something. like i can deal with another fake-out with a slightest of hints that she's still alive. but an actual death and i'm gonna start thinking that the writers have something against child-slaves, and not in a way that should be obvious.