#gray morality

[drbigsadbabymd-blog]

I'm always blown away when people engage with extremely morally grey (at best) media like Warhammer or the ASOIAF series as if there are any wholly righteous morally upstanding characters.

It's a little fascinating, I guess, like maybe they recognize on an intellectual level that it's not actually thematically accurate to view characters in such black+white terms but we've been so thoroughly socialized to see characters through a Good Guy vs Bad Guy lens that it overrides any evidence that contradicts it.

Like awhile back, I said I wouldn't characterize (book) Rob Stark as a "great person", that he certainly had good intentions but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. The road to hell and all that. He's certainly trying his best, but he's a dumb 15-year-old boy who unquestioningly follows his father's extremely rigid, unnuanced moral code to an ultimately harmful end. Y'know, just like Ned.

We're not supposed to think Ned and Rob's rigid honor code is a good thing. Ned could have swallowed his pride a little bit to have Cersei arrested, to act as regent with Joffrey on the throne, etc. but that violated his rigid sense of honor. The honorable path results in his entire household being murdered, Sansa being subjected to extreme abuse for years, his own death, the War of the Five Kings...like it's a catastrophically bad decision that gets 90% of the people he's supposed to protect hurt or murdered. He was unwilling to sacrifice a shred of pride by being a little duplicitous for the greater good, his actions are driven by ego with a thin veneer of ~Honor~ on top.

And Rob follows in his father's footsteps. By insisting on breaking the Frey marriage pact/alliance by marrying Jeyne after impulsively sleeping with her, he sets in motion the events that lead to the Red Wedding. He gets himself, his men and his mother murdered, which allows the monstrous Boltons to seize power over the North and leaves his remaining allies extremely vulnerable to attack by the Lannister forces. Edmure, Riverrun and the greater Riverlands are fucked. Moreover, it's left his sisters in extremely precarious positions, their wellbeing hinged on Rob's continued survival. Instead, Arya has to go full Feral Orphan Child mode and Sansa is put in a god awful position where she either has to remain an abused hostage at court or rely on Petyr "wow you're like really mature for your age" Baelish to find some semblance of safety.

If Rob had simply swallowed his pride and, I dunno, married Jeyne off to one of his higher-ranking bannermen, none of this would have happened. It doesn't ensure a win, but it definitely would have prevented such a devastating loss. He gets more leeway because, again, he is a dumb 15-year-old boy, but also: he is a 15-year-old king, as well, that requires thinking about the bigger picture. He didn't have to become a king, he chose to do so and thus accepted the responsibility this comes with (mainly: don't get everyone following you killed).

You're not supposed to accept "Being rigidly honorable means you're a good man" at face value; it's repeatedly proven to actually be quite a selfish, prideful thing. It's actually more admirable, in many ways, to be willing to take an L for the betterment of everyone.

Anyway, I got pushback for this take lol

And it was odd. Because a good deal of the book series is largely built around challenging black and white thinking. By the time we get to the War of the Five Kings and see how it's effecting the smallfolk, it's pretty clear none of the Westerosi nobility are "good people". Honestly, Edmure might come closest for allowing the peasants of the Riverlands to take refuge inside his castle and even then Catelyn's like "...Well that's weird. And sweet. But mostly weird, though"

Yet a good chunk of the fandom has compartmentalized characters into Good and Bad categories. I think the show is partly to blame, the show does frame certain characters as heroes vs villains. It can't even handle portraying a guy like Tyrion as a charmingly likable but also profoundly shitty man (he is Tywin writ small, afterall). He just gets flattened into "a good guy with y'know...some issues"

I dunno. It's just interesting to me.

[otomegirl4ever]

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

SUMARRY:

To the Decepticons, Tarn is the perfect weapon: unwavering, fanatically devoted, Megatron’s most loyal Hound. To the Autobots, he is a nightmare given form—merciless, precise, and impossible to turn.

But loyalty, like everything in Tarn’s life, has a price.

Behind the mask and the myth lies a far less noble truth: Tarn and the DJD are mercenaries, bound not by ideology, but by contract. Megatron pays well—well enough to buy silence, obedience, and the illusion of devotion that keeps both Decepticons and Autobots deceived. Only Soundwave and Shockwave know the truth, and neither are foolish enough to break a profitable lie.

Tarn stays for one reason alone: he needs the money. Desperately. Because hidden far from the war, within the fragile neutrality of Peaceful Tyranny, lives his greatest secret—his Conjunx.

Starscream is no soldier, no schemer clawing for power. He is simply a civilian—brilliant, soft-spoken, and achingly out of place in a war that should never have touched him. And yet, he chose Tarn. Loves Tarn. Knows exactly what he is… and stayed anyway.

For Tarn, every mission, every execution, every drop of energon spilled is a transaction—a means to keep Starscream safe, comfortable, alive.

The illusion holds. Until it doesn’t.

When the Autobots stumble upon the truth, Tarn’s carefully constructed world fractures in an instant. Now, the question is no longer what Tarn is worth… but what the Autobots will do with the knowledge that the Decepticons’ most feared enforcer is nothing more—and nothing less—than a mech with something to lose.

And Tarn?

Tarn will burn the universe before he lets anyone touch what is his.

[aventurineswife]

Hello I was thinking, what if there was an avatar in Genshin impact, I thought it might make sense because all of the elements in Genshin impact are ones that benders from avatar are capable of using. So I was thinking what if the avatar was the reader and she was born in Natlan and when she was born it put Natlan into a bit of an excited uproar because it had been a century since the previous avatar passed away, and I was wondering, how would the avatar play into the Natlan archon quest, would she be able to ask the past avatar's for guidance, and how would her upbringing from childhood be? Would she be kept under protection as she learned to control the elements or would she be granted a normal childhood and begin training when she becomes a teenager. I'm also thinking about the reader talking to Capitano because the previous avatar was born in Snezhnaya. Got inspired by this https://youtube.com/shorts/wWtnuexWIag?feature=shared

Between the Inferno and the Ice

Summary: Born in Natlan after a century without an Avatar, you are both a symbol of hope and a force of uncertainty. Raised under the watchful eye of the Pyro Archon, your life has been one of training and expectation. But as the Fatui tighten their grip on Natlan and war looms on the horizon, you must decide your path. With the voices of past Avatars whispering guidance and Capitano standing as both an adversary and an enigma, you are forced to answer one question:

Tags: Capitano x Reader, Avatar AU, Slow Burn, Found Family & Duty, Past Avatars Guidance, Moral Dilemmas & Gray Morality, Heavy Worldbuilding, Slow-Build Romance & Tension.

Warnings: Violence & Combat Scenes (?), Political Intrigue & Power Struggles, Moral Dilemmas & Themes of Duty vs. Freedom, Mentions of War & Colonial Influence (Fatui Involvement in Natlan), Potential Angst & Emotional Conflicts, Slow-Burn Romance (No Immediate Love Story)

The flames of Natlan danced with an untamed fury the day you were born. The land itself seemed to respond to your arrival, the embers crackling with an energy that had not been felt for over a century.

The Avatar had returned.

It had been generations since the last Avatar, a formidable force born in Snezhnaya, passed on. The world had grown accustomed to the absence of one who could wield all elements, and yet, the cycle had not been broken. The Pyro Archon’s priests claimed your birth was a divine omen, a harbinger of change. But change was not always welcomed.

Some rejoiced, believing you to be Natlan’s guiding light. Others feared the power you would grow into. The Pyro Archon herself, ever passionate in her pursuits, saw you as both a beacon of hope and a challenge to overcome.

Would you burn with Natlan’s untamed ferocity? Or would you learn to temper your flames?

Your childhood was anything but ordinary. Raised under the watchful eyes of warriors and scholars, you were both a symbol and a responsibility. The Pyro Archon ensured your training began early, though there were those who argued you deserved a childhood free from duty. It was a delicate balance—one you constantly struggled with.

And then came the dreams.

Whispers from past Avatars guided your steps, their knowledge seeping into your mind in moments of stillness. The Avatar before you—the one from Snezhnaya—visited you often. They spoke of war, of duty, of the cost of power.

"The Fatui will come for you one day," they warned. "And when they do, you must decide—will you be their ally or their foe?"

It was a decision that would weigh on you for years.

By the time the Traveler arrived in Natlan, you had become a force to be reckoned with. No longer the child in need of protection, you were a warrior, a diplomat, and a leader. You had mastered Pyro, could summon the storms of Electro, shape the land with Geo, and call upon the tides of Hydro. But your journey was far from over.

Natlan was on the precipice of war. The Fatui had embedded themselves deep within the region, their influence undeniable. And at their helm stood the Harbinger Capitano.

When you finally came face-to-face with him, it was not as an enemy, nor as an ally, but as something in between.

"You carry the wisdom of the Avatar before you," he mused, his deep voice laced with intrigue. "And yet, you hesitate."

He was right. The teachings of the previous Avatar echoed in your mind. Snezhnaya’s cold pragmatism warned you against the Pyro Archon’s impulsive nature. And yet, Natlan’s fire burned in your veins, urging you to act.

"What would you have me do, Harbinger?" you asked, watching his unreadable expression.

"That depends," Capitano said, stepping closer. "Are you here to change the world—or to protect it?"

You had no answer. Not yet. But the winds of Natlan carried your name, and soon, the whole world would know it.

The Avatar had returned. And your story was only just beginning.

[jajafilm]

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

A nightmare, a pleasant experience - just a normal week

Yassen Gregorovich's pleasant experience

Alex Rider fanfiction.

It was a nightmare for Ben. He had to work with a world-famous assassin, from which sent shivers down his spine, and his favorite young spy wasn't left out of all the madness. It was a pleasant experience and opportunity for Yassen. He finally met Rider again and was able to work with him. It was a normal week for Alex.

[monsterblogging]

...Y'know what? I think "morally gray" is about as useful of a term to describe characters as "Mary Sue." It's far too subjective and imprecise to have any real analytical value.

[commock]

It doesn't matter what you choose... the outcome will be ONE

You know... I'm so tired - I don't want anything

[transgwender616]

Is it really gray morality if the characters can still be sorted into basically a hero and basically a villain?

[anneapocalypse]

I like your post about gray morality in video games! On the other hand I wanted to add that the gray decision-making you're talking about can have its own pitfalls (distinct from the pitfalls of centrist/apolitical "both sides are bad" apathy). I'm thinking of gritty action heroes who are presented as morally gray because they're pragmatic enough to torture and kill in the name of Truth, Justice, and the 'Murican Way, or just in the name of a macho revenge fantasy. To be clear, this isn't an indictment of gray morality, which I love when done well. Hell, the stories I'm complaining about tend not to be THAT gray in practice, as the bad guys are often SO exaggeratedly bad that there's not a real question of whether the hero is willing to Do What It Takes in the end. My point is more just that that's what people often mean when they condemn "gray morality."

Hi! Sorry this has been sitting my ask box for a while, I got busy and didn't want to just dash off a response.

(We're talking about this post, for those who haven't seen it. RIP my notifications.)

Anyway I'll just say here for the record that yeah, gray morality in fiction can be done poorly! While the line for "done poorly" is going to be different for everyone, I can certainly think of examples I've disliked.

(This got long, sorry in advance. 😩 Also, spoilers for Fallout 3 and all the Dragon Age games, if anyone cares!)

My go-to example of one I think is a real stinker is the Fallout 3 DLC "The Pitt" where the critical decision is... whether to free a bunch of people from being enslaved in horrible conditions! But! in order to free them, you have to kidnap a baby from... the enslaver. Because something something the baby's genetics are the key to curing the illness that afflict the slaves from their horrible working conditions... you don't actually have to hurt the baby, though, she'll be fine. She'll just be taken away from her parents. Who are, again, slavers. I promise I'm not making it sound any stupider than it sounds in the game itself. :P Like the whole concept of putting an infant in your video game inventory and making a break for it is just a little too wacky for me to take seriously, but it feels like you're meant to take it seriously, and apart from trying to inject some ambiguity into the decision, I'm not sure why the whole baby plot would even be there. Honestly, Fallout 3 isn't a game about moral ambiguity. (I think both New Vegas and even Fallout 4 do that kind of thing better.) Most of its major decisions boil down to "Do you want to do the Good Person Thing or the Evil Bastard thing?" That's the game. No one is trying to inject moral ambiguity into blowing up Megaton. It's just a thing you can do if you want to roleplay an Evil Character. I love Fallout 3, I'm just saying, that's what it is. And I think "The Pitt" would have been both more thematically appropriate and less stupid if it had just skipped the whole baby plot and been like "Hey! Do you want to be the Good Person who frees the slaves, or the Evil Bastard who allies with the slaver?" It's morally simple, but the thing is the baby didn't actually make that story or the decision any more interesting to me, so it might as well not have been there at all.

But Fallout 3 isn't the kind of thing I was thinking of when I made that post. I was thinking a lot more about things like the decisions in the Dragon Age games, which don't usually fall neatly into The Good Option and The Evil Option, and are more likely to ask the player to make their own judgments. And a common criticism I see of those games is that they're "centrist" and try to "both sides" in-universe issues because the game doesn't explicitly tell you which choice is The Good One, or it doesn't explicitly reward one choice and punish the other, and that's... not really an interpretation that I generally agree with? But that's a much more involved discussion, honestly. At some point, I'd like to write a post about how I feel Inquisition presents the mage rebellion, because it's such a big topic and big game (and by "I'd like to" I mean... I already have a draft started, whoops). That's just more than I have time to get into today!

But I will say this: I find the plot decisions where you're given an obvious "best option" to be the least interesting choices in the Dragon Age games. The Redcliffe decision in Origins is the most obvious one to me, where I think the option to save Connor from possession should at least have been much harder to find, because in the lore, the fact that mages even can be saved from possession and not just killed is widely unknown because it goes against the templar party line, and the fact that Ferelden's First Enchanter is just like, "Oh yeah, sure, we can totally do that, pack up the lyrium boys" just doesn't really mesh with everything else we're told about the Circles and conventional wisdom on magic. Plus, the fact that there's no consequences for leaving Redcliffe for days with Connor possessed just... makes the decision too easy, for me, because in-universe it feels like it shouldn't be that easy. There's also the werewolf decision, wherein the Lady of the Forest just tells you straight out that Zathrian can break the curse with his own death, presenting you with a "best option" that it feels both stupid and sort of comically evil to disregard (like, from a purely pragmatic standpoint why would you fight the entire pack of werewolves or an entire clan of elves when you can just make Zathrian solve the problem here and now).

The ending decision of DA2 is an example that I feel has a really stark moral contrast to it (which I've discussed before), and one that I think does place certain constraints on role-playing, but in that case I think it's appropriate to the themes of the game, so I don't mind it.

But my favorite plot decisions in Dragon Age are things like the Landsmeet, the Winter Palace, and even the Orzammar quest line. Not just because I love fantasy politics, but because you have to work with what you're given in a way that feels realistic to the setting and the story. No matter how much of a hero you are, you can't waltz into Orzammar or Denerim or Halamshiral and brute-force a perfect solution. Unless you're a dwarf yourself, you're an outsider who doesn't know anything about dwarven politics and no one is particularly forthcoming about the situation because everyone has an agenda! and yet you have to solve this conflict in order to get aid against the Blight. You have to make a decision based on very little information and almost none of it concrete. At the Landsmeet, you may want justice, but it's your word against Loghain's with no proof of what really happened at Ostagar, and if you want to win you need provable charges, you need to show the nobles that you support their interests and not just your own, and no matter which butt you put on the throne, you're faced with the very real possibility of another succession crisis a few decades on so congratulations, you've just kicked the can down the road.

And oh, the Winter Palace, my beloved. You cannot make Briala the Empress, no matter how much you might want to! You cannot abolish the monarchy. You cannot force Orlais to relinquish the Dales and re-establish the Elven state. Your options are: keep the empress whose reign overall has been sympathetic to elves and commoners and relatively diplomatic toward her neighbors, but who also may have just done a good old fashioned massacre to crush a rebellion and maintain her power; let her be killed and put the militant expansionist on the throne; get Briala and Celene back together (maybe with the hope that Briala will continue to influence her); help Briala do a blackmail which surely will work out totally fine and not backfire in anyway; or force them all to shut up and play ball for now, basically just kicking the can down the road. None of these options are perfect by any means! There are interesting and believable in-character reasons you might choose to role-play any of them. And every one has the possibility of unforeseen consequences later on, positive or negative.

I made the original post, in part, in response to condemnations of the kind of decisions I enjoy in these games. And at the end of the day, it's okay not to like those decisions, to prefer more unambiguous choices or more room to indulge in the fantasy of fixing everything. But that's not always the kind of story a game is trying to tell, and I think that's fine, and personally I enjoy the complicated decisions more. And I feel like sometimes those complicated or ambiguous choices are read as if they're either presenting all options as morally equivalent when they're not, or that they're "punishing" the player for a choice if it has any kind of negative outcome, and I don't think that's the case! I think it's fine and good in fiction to explore the ways in which trying to change things for the better can be difficult and how a choice with some negative consequences may still be the best one available, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I hope I didn't get too far afield here, and thanks if you read this far!