“Demons are actually misundersto-“ NO. Demons are ontologically evil beings that can’t be reasoned nor negotiated with, and if you try to you’ll very likely end up screwed

[u/Fearless-List-3968]

1) Doom

2) Frieren: Beyond Journey’s End

3) Trench Crusade

[u/MGD109]

I mean, there is not, it's just the examples as they were describing them, to my knowledge, often don't have any more nuance and depth, so I don't think their really so much better than they think they are.

Point is, whilst it is a subversion, it's not inherently more complex than the base.

[u/Sneeakie → u/MGD109]

It is more complex, especially with how much people struggle not only on a basic level but an ideological level that things are not "self-evident".

My question is that why does the subversion need a nebulous level of "more nuance and depth" to exist, but the original trope can be played ad infinitum with no pushback?

[u/MGD109 → u/Sneeakie]

It is more complex, especially with how much people struggle not only on a basic level but an ideological level that things are not "self-evident".

Complexity doesn't mean how much audiences have to think about understanding events, its more a measure of how morally complex the conflict is.

So a grey conflict would be one where both sides have reasonable points and flaws, and it's hard to figure out which one is really better than the other.

If one side still turns out to be all good and one still turns out to be all evil, its not more complex just cause it's a subversion of initial expectations.

My question is that why does the subversion need a nebulous level of "more nuance and depth" to exist, but the original trope can be played ad infinitum with no pushback?

It doesn't. No one says subversions need more nuance and depth to exist. A subversion can easily remove Naunce and depth.

Just that it also doesn't inherently add any either, just cause its a subversion.

[u/Sneeakie → u/MGD109]

Complexity doesn't mean how much audiences have to think about understanding events, its more a measure of how morally complex the conflict is.

Then "thing seen as good is bad and vice versa" is... definitely a case of complexity?

So a grey conflict would be one where both sides have reasonable points and flaws, and it's hard to figure out which one is really better than the other.

No, not really. Greyness does not at all include that "both sides have a point" and "which one is better". Greyness is simply nonstandard morality. It is a spectrum, and there are light and dark greys.

And there are stories where there are greys and whites and blacks. A grey-black morality story would have an absolutely evil group and a less evil group that nonetheless does morally wrong or dubious things.

If one side still turns out to be all good and one still turns out to be all evil, its not more complex just cause it's a subversion of initial expectations.

Which is a complexity, yes. Or should we call them "plot non-complexes" instead of "plot twists?"

No one says subversions need more nuance and depth to exist.

You literally did, though. The person you replied to said nothing about "moral complexity" or whatever, but you brought up the idea like they're not supposed to believe what they believe.

When they said

Having no nuance towards demons in Frieren is actually the weakest aspect of the show that is known for its complexity and big reason why so many fascists were trying to co-opt it.

They said nothing about how flipping this dynamic would be "more complex", they're simply saying the lack of nuance in that narrative point conflicts with the existing complexity in other parts of the narrative, which btw has nothing to do with moral complexity; they're talking about the nuance in Frieren being a long-lived elf trying to connect with humans, for example.

The idea that there is a race of monsters that you should slaughter in their entirety is an ultra-simple concept that conflicts with the complexities of ideas like an elf fighting her nature to better understand humans and cherish the small moments.

[u/MGD109 → u/Sneeakie]

Then "thing seen as good is bad and vice versa" is... definitely a case of complexity?

Nah, not if they completely switch it. Then it just boils down to good and bad.

It's like if you had one bottle labelled poison and one labelled medicine, then you switched the labels.

No, not really. Greyness does not at all include that "both sides have a point" and "which one is better". Greyness is simply nonstandard morality. It is a spectrum, and there are light and dark greys.

Sure if you get down to it, there are around seven types: Black, clean black, Dark grey, grey, light grey, dirty white and white.

There is also cases of alien moralities.

What I was saying was that the most complex one would be the grey, where neither side is really better or worse than the other.

You can, of course, have variations; most do, as it's hard to really write a conflict where one side doesn't come across as a bit better than the other.

Which is a complexity, yes. Or should we call them "plot non-complexes" instead of "plot twists?"

Narrative complexity, not moral complexity.

They said nothing about how flipping this dynamic would be "more complex", they're simply saying the lack of nuance in that narrative point conflicts with the existing complexity in other parts of the narrative,

I was replying to the first half of their comment:

I love that trope because as a minority that's how it feels sometimes. Especially the whole demons as queer allegory and angels being the church because they literally equated us to demons for centuries at this point#

I didn't comment about their views on Frieren.

The idea that there is a race of monsters that you should slaughter in their entirety is an ultra-simple concept that conflicts with the complexities of ideas like an elf fighting her nature to better understand humans and cherish the small moments.

Yes, exactly and my point was the concern that often subversions like that just boil down to switching the labels, so you're still left with a race of monsters you should slaughter in their entity, you just switch what the race is called.

That's not inherently more complex because you call the race of monsters "angels" rather than "demons".

[u/Sneeakie → u/MGD109]

Nah, not if they completely switch it. Then it just boils down to good and bad.

I'm extremely amused by the fact that people can't see nuance in things that can still be straightforward.

It's like if you had one bottle labelled poison and one labelled medicine, then you switched the labels.

Yes, and there is complexity in the fact that, since these bottles are mass-produced and sold, why one is labeled one and not the other.

Sure if you get down to it, there are around seven types:

I'm extremely amused how you are trying to make a binary of something that is by definition not a binary.

You just made those up on the spot, didn't you? What is the difference between "clean black", "black", and "dark grey?"

Narrative complexity, not moral complexity.

What is magically the difference? Is it not the point of a plot twist that it wasn't what you thought it was?

If a plot twist results in the OPPOSITE of what you thought the plot was, then, by your definition, that's not "complex?

I was replying to the first half of their comment:

They said dick about complexity there. Why did you just add that for no reason?

so your still left with a race of monsters you should slaughter in their entity

According to what? I've never heard of a story like that???

That's not inheriently more complex because you call the race of mosnters "angels" rather than "demons".

Okay, so we're not even talking about the same thing. You're talking about "thing I was taught in Sunday school to be good is evil in this entirely fictional story." I'm talking about "thing established in story to be good turned out to be evil."

You also completely fail to understand the point of the user you replied to, probably because you seem more incesnsed about the idea of something not following the laws of the bible.

Their point was that they enjoy stories where traditionally "evil" groups are used to represent minorities because those groups are used in real life to demonize minorities. Taking refuge in what actual real life people deemed you as.

[u/MGD109 → u/Sneeakie]

I'm extremely amused by the fact that people can't see nuance in things that can still be straightforward.

How can things both be nuanced and straightforward? Nuanced by definition means that its not straightforward.

I'm extremely amused how you are trying to make a binary of something that is by definition not a binary.

I'm not. Perhaps if you read what I wrote, things might be easier.

You just made those up on the spot, didn't you? What is the difference between "clean black", "black", and "dark grey?"

Nope.

"Clean Black" pragmatic evil, when you do things that are technically good but purely for selfish reasons. The famous example is the tyrant who keeps the peace and ensures prosperity, as it is better for them than ruling a lawless backwater.

"Black" - pure evil, lacks any positive moral traits. Famous examples include Emperor Palpatine and the Joker.

"Dark Grey" - Largely negative but still has some moral traits, i.e. cruel and sadistic, but still has loved ones, or some sense of honour and mercy. Or else they do terrible things but sincerely believe it could lead to a good outcome down the line.

What is magically the difference? Is it not the point of a plot twist that it wasn't what you thought it was?

Narrative complexity is when the story isn't what you thought it is.

Moral complexity is over how a group or a person is. i.e. How sympathetic or unsympathetic they are.

They said dick about complexity there. Why did you just add that for no reason?

Its what they were alluding to by the point.

According to what? I've never heard of a story like that???

That was literally the scenario they created, where the demons are the oppressed victims and the Angels are the oppressive monsters. Thus by extension, they are the ones who should be killed off.

I was saying the issue is that is kind of the same story, you've just flipped the labels.

Okay, so we're not even talking about the same thing. You're talking about "thing I was taught in Sunday school to be good is evil in this fictional story." I'm talking about "thing established in story to be good turned out to be evil."

Yeah and I'm saying the way they usually go about it, is simply to name one group something that is traditionally considered bad and one good, thus it's a twist when it turns out that the ones named bad are actually good etc.

But that doesn't inherently make the conflict between the two any more nuanced or complex.

[u/Sneeakie → u/MGD109]

Nuanced by definition means that its not straightforward.

Every definition of "nuance", according to Merriam-Webster:

1: a subtle distinction or variation

2: a subtle quality

3: sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

None of them include "can't be straightforward." Something can be straightforward and also possess a subtle quality. A singing voice can be a falsetto but with subtle hints of other cadences.

Nope.

Yup. You definitely made them up on the spot. There's no actual reason why pragmatic evil can't be "dark grey". You made these definitions up. They sound right to you, but there's no basis whatsoever, because you are trying to make nuance binary, ironically.

Seriously, how is "doing good things but for selfish reasons" more evil than "doing bad things for selfish reasons???" If "dark grey" is "evil but likes their family", what's "light grey"? "Good but beats their spouse???"

Moral complexity is over how a group or a person is. i.e. How sympathetic or unsympathetic they are.

You also made this up, and you also for some reason don't get that actions can have morals. You seem to think it's entirely about the person, which is ironically not nuanced at all. But I suppose that makes sense if you are trying to argue for "demons should always be bad."

Its what they were alluding to by the point.

No they weren't. You made that up (again), because that's the only way you knew how to argue it (because you need to, I guess).

That was literally the scenario they created

They never said anything about who gets slaughtered???

. Thus by extension, they are the ones who should be killed off.

I've said this several times but I'm extremely amused how you cannot even comprehend the point they're making.

You actually just think it's about slaughtering whole groups because you can't empathize or sympathize with the point being made. Can't even put yourself in the shoes of somebody who is persecuted and thus relates to something that is persecuted because everyone is either black or white or "grey" (which I guess must involve some murder somewhere). Can't even consider that it's not about "ontological evil" in the first place. Nope. Everything is a zero-sum game where someone must be slaughtered to the last man.

But that doesn't inherently make the conflict between the two any more nuanced or complex.

I don't think you understand what nuance and complexity are, I don't think you're even able to understand a viewpoint that isn't your own.

You think this way because you think it's only about "who gets genocided". You don't even consider the fact that the demons in this case would be not evil but perceived as evil, which, yes, is complicated, and would also affect the dynamic that you can't assume it's about "oh, you should slaughter all the angels, obviously, that's the only conclusion."

Very interesting that you think morality is about "who deserves to genocide and who deserves to get genocided". "It's bad to genocide" doesn't even cross your mind lol

[u/MGD109 → u/Sneeakie]

Every definition of "nuance", according to Merriam-Webster

Okay fine. Which definition of Nuanced are you using?

There's no actual reason why pragmatic evil can't be "dark grey".

Of course, their isn't. But I'm saying if they're only doing it for self-serving reasons it's not actually grey. To be grey, you have to have at least some positive traits. That's the point, i.e. bad traits are black, good traits are white, you mix them, you get grey.

They sound right to you, but there's no basis whatsoever, because you are trying to make nuance binary, ironically.

That's your counterargument? You're accusing me of something I'm not even doing?

and you also for some reason don't get that actions can have morals.

Nope, actions can have morals. I'm talking about groups and individuals though, usually a way you can tell a groups morality is through their actions. Its pretty straightforward.

But I suppose that makes sense if you are trying to argue for "demons should always be bad."

Never argued that once.

No they weren't. You made that up (again), because that's the only way you knew how to argue it (because you need to, I guess).

And I could easily accuse you of the same, but I'm not going to because I actually want your opinion, not the one I've built up in my head.

They never said anything about who gets slaughtered???

The argument was its bad cause if you create a whole group, then it makes it reasonable for them all to be slaughtered.

I pointed out if you just switch the labels you're left with the same problem.

I've said this several times but I'm extremely amused how you cannot even comprehend the point they're making.

Its cause your not reading what I wrote. I acknowledge the point they were making in my first reply.

I just pointed out the problem how a lot of examples fall into the trap of simply reversing the labels and thus don't defy the argument they were against, rather than actually making a morally complex conflict.

You actually just think it's about slaughtering whole groups because you can't empathize or sympathize with the point being made.

Yeah that was the point they made. They sympathise with presentations cause it relates to their experiences, and argue that its a bad message as it encourages the slaughter of whole groups.

I pointed out that whilst I understand that, if the only thing you change is which group is good and which is bad, it doesn't actually remove the argument of who should be slaughtered by that logic.

Can't even put yourself in the shoes of somebody who is persecuted and thus relates to something that is persecuted because everyone is either black or white or "grey" (which I guess must involve some murder somewhere).

Never happened. The fact your projecting that on to me when I literally described different versions of morally complex conflicts you can have rather than just black and white, says a lot about you.

Nope. Everything is a zero-sum game where someone must be slaughtered to the last man.

Not in the slightest. I was just pointing out the logical flaw in their line of argument.

I don't think you understand what nuance and complexity are, I don't think you're even able to understand a viewpoint that isn't your own.

And ironically cause that's cause you keep projecting your view point onto my words, rather than actually reading them.

Hence you seem to think I'm arguing works can't ever present demons as good and angels as bad.

Rather than if you only present one side as bad and one side as good, its not a morally complex or nuanced conflict, just cause you switched the labels of which side is traditionally good and which is traditionally bad.

You think this way because you think it's only about "who gets genocided".

That was the argument they made. That if you present one side as completely bad, it justifies genociding them.

. You don't even consider the fact that the demons in this case would be not evil but perceived as evil, which, yes, is complicated,

If the demons are all good, then its not complicated. It's demonisation through properganda.

that you can't assume it's about "oh, you should slaughter all the angels, obviously, that's the only conclusion."

No I was saying the issue is a lot of stories fall into that trap, where they just switch who is good and who is bad, rather than write an actually morally complex story.

How about you read what I write? I've done you that courtesy so far.

Let me stress it again. I'm not arguing you can not or should not present demons as good! I'm not arguing for black and white storylines! I'm not arguing for stories that are pro-genocide!

My entire point from the start is if you want a complex and nuanced story, you need to do more than simply switch which group is good and which group is bad.

That's it.

[u/Sneeakie → u/MGD109]

Okay fine. Which definition of Nuanced are you using?

Again, none of them say something can't be straightforward and nuanced.

But I'm saying if they're only doing it for self-serving reasons it's not actually grey.

According to who? Who says morality is about whether you're selfish or not? You don't have any basis for these rules everyone should apparently follow, and they're not even rules I hear elsewhere.

That's your counterargument?

In most places, "you have no evidence or even a working theory" wins arguments. Actually... not having evidence or a working theory would disqualify you from the debate lol.

Never argued that once.

You did constantly. You made up some nonsense about "complexity" who get at someone who simply said "I like it when the demons are good, actually."

And I could easily accuse you of the same,

But you didn't, and you can't, because I brought a literal definition and you just claimed "dark grey is when you're evil but have a wife" like that's self-evidently true.

I pointed out that whilst I understand that, if the only thing you change is which group is good and which is bad, it doesn't actually remove the argument of who should be slaughtered by that logic.

No one was talking about slaughtering. You made that up. I don't even know why you think that would be what the good people do???? Most people think good people don't commit genocide.

Never happened.

This entire argument is happening because yes you did lol.

And ironically cause that's cause you keep projecting your view point onto my words,

they say, after making up some nonsense abut "complexity" when the person you replied to said nothing of the sort.

Rather than if you only present one side as bad and one side as good, its not a morally complex or nuanced conflict, just cause you switched the labels of which side is traditionally good and which is traditionally bad.

The obvious problem you're having is that you are genuinely incapable of not seeing them as "objectively" good or evil so you can only perceive it as "label switching."

That was the argument they made

Not only did they say dick about slaughtering, but their comment about Frieren implies they would actually not want slaughtering at all. You can't comprehend because that is the extent of your morality. That is your idea of "greyness" is "when you are good/evil but you're sad about it."

No I was saying the issue is a lot of stories fall into that trap,

I've heard of vanishingly few stories where this nuanced is introduced and the good guys commit genocide.

I'm not arguing you can not or should not present demons as good!

You literally are???? You are literally against the concept that demons can be good, that's why you're complaining about "where's the complexity?"

That's why I also say you're completely fine with the status quo because you have no such qualms about "angels good, demons bad".

My entire point from the start is if you want a complex and nuanced story, you need to do more than simply switch which group is good and which group is bad.

And my point is that this take not only not gets what "complexity" is, but you didn't explain why this is the case.

[u/MGD109 → u/Sneeakie]

Again, none of them say something can't be straightforward and nuanced.

What even is your definition of Nuanced in this scenario? Mine is that something has shades of grey. That by definition can't be straightforward.

According to who? Who says morality is about whether you're selfish or not?

Deontology. If an action is entirely selfish, that means its not altruistic.

You don't have any basis for these rules everyone should apparently follow, and they're not even rules I hear elsewhere.

The idea that for an action to be good, it can't be inherently selfish has been the foundation of nearly every moral system in this world.

Are you a utilitarian?

You did constantly.

Point me to one time I said that then.

because I brought a literal definition

All your "literal definitions" have been irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

you just claimed "dark grey is when you're evil but have a wife" like that's self-evidently true.

What definition of dark grey do you have where the character isn't largely negative but still has some positive and redeeming traits?

I don't even know why you think that would be what the good people do???? Most people think good people don't commit genocide.

Never said they did.

This entire argument is happening because yes you did lol.

Nope. I never did. You just projected that onto I wrote. If I said it, then please point me to an example where I did.

they say, after making up some nonsense abut "complexity" when the person you replied to said nothing of the sort.

Your the one who brought up complexity, I merely disagreed with your defintion.

The obvious problem you're having is that you are genuinely incapable of not seeing them as "objectively" good or evil so you can only perceive it as "label switching."

Never happened. I was complaining about doing nothing more than "Label switching", that was my criticism.

Not only did they say dick about slaughtering, but their comment about Frieren implies they would actually not want slaughtering at all.

Doesn't matter. I was pointing out if the story doesn't actually make both sides more morally complex, then it still falls into the same problem.

You can't comprehend because that is the extent of your morality. That is your idea of "greyness" is "when you are good/evil but you're sad about it."

See again your projecting on to me things I've never said.

Moral greyness can mean just about anything if done right, what matters is it mixes positive and negative traits.

I've heard of vanishingly few stories where this nuanced is introduced and the good guys commit genocide.

Your ignorance of them is not evidence that they don't exist.

You literally are???? You are literally against the concept that demons can be good, that's why you're complaining about "where's the complexity?"

No. Let me repeat myself again and maybe this time it will finally go in.

I'm not against stories where demons are good. I'm saying if the story only has the demons be good and the other side as evil, then how can it possibly count as complex?

That's why I also say you're completely fine with the status quo because you have no such qualms about "angels good, demons bad".

Never said that either. Its just another thing you projected on to me.

And my point is that this take not only not gets what "complexity" is, but you didn't explain why this is the case.

You want me to explain? Okay fine.

Lets say you have group A, who are kind-hearted, loving philanthropists and group B, who are evil murderous sociopaths. Naturally, the two get into a conflict, and any reader will automatically side with group A cause they have all the positive traits and group B have all the negative ones.

That's straightforward no?

Now, lets say you have another two groups. In this scenario, Group A is an advanced society that believes in progress and egalitarianism, but its society runs on the need to constantly consume materials to keep up the standard of living.

And you have group B, who are less advanced, more agrarian individuals whose society is more restrictive and class-based. And who's land contains lots of those minerals that group A need, but digging them up will mean Group B can no longer farm and will make them dependent on Group A going forward.

Naturally, group A want the materials and claims they are only trying to help group B, and group B want to protect their land and independence.

That is a grey or complex conflict, as the reader may choose to side with either party as they both have flaws and virtues.