Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-26417457-20190905232433/@comment-43757330-20190911222428

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote:

''Why do people bring these things up? She really did have to kill both and that isn't a justification or defense, but logic. Letting Pyrrha live makes no sense. All that would do is guarantee Cinder would have to fight her again some day, when she is stronger and way more likely to kick Cinder's ass successfully. The Mistral woman was a witness and Cinder was a fugitive wanted for serious crimes. I mean, you can say they are evil choices all the same, but the good choices in both cases basically amount to her surrendering.'' Well, we bring them up because murder is definitely relevant when assessing how evil a character is. In fact, it’s just about the most relevant thing I can think of.

But, moving on, Cinder does not have to kill anybody. The choice is hers and hers alone. Logically, sure, it makes perfect sense to murder a rival and a witness. But logic and morality are not the same thing. In fact, they couldn’t be more disparate. Often times, the logical choice is not the right choice. I would argue, that if everyone on this planet behaved in a purely logical manner, we would all be killers. The world would become a primal competition for resources, love and empathy would be abandoned in favor of survivalism, and life would essentially destroy itself.

More to the point, balancing logic with morality is what life is all about. Sometimes we do things that don’t directly benefit ourselves (or that harm us directly) for the good of others. This is called altruism, and it is the source of all good. The source of all evil, by contrast, is egotism; doing what is best for oneself with no regard for anyone else.

Applying this concept of altruism vs egotism to Cinder, it becomes clear very quickly that she fiercely favors egotism, and by extension: evil. Would sparing Pyrrha and the Mistral woman amount to surrender? No. It would just make Cinder’s life harder. That’s the price she’d have to pay for an act of altruism. But instead, she consistently chooses the easy path; the path that benefits her the most. Because, to Cinder, the wellbeing of others is immaterial. All that matters is the self. Which is, again, unspeakably evil.

The thing, though, that I think is worth mentioning is that while Cinder’s choices appear, at face value, to be logical; I would argue they couldn’t be more harmful to her. Cinder’s rampant, unrelenting egotism is leading her on an irrevocable path toward self destruction. This is true of all criminals, in fiction and in reality. Leading a life of crime, though it provides immediate rewards, never ends well.

And so, to address the last thing you said, I would argue that surrendering is both the most self-beneficial, and most good-natured thing Cinder could do at this point. Because, if she doesn’t, and she continues to lead a life of relentless murder, we all know that it’s going to end very badly for her. She’s either going to end up dead, or in a situation that is comparably just as bad or worse. So it is very much in her best interest that she start looking at things from an altruistic perspective.

Also, you have to consider that if Remnant’s afterlife has a ‘heaven/hell’ dynamic, death may well be the last thing Cinder has to worry about at this point. Because, given her actions, I don’t think she qualifies for the former at this point in time. The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote:

''Again, her choices her are perfectly logical. Sure, revenge is a factor, but there is a bit of that in JNR joining up with Ruby and heading to Haven as well. However, it also just makes sense from Cinder's perspective as Ruby can seriously wound her. Calling Ruby a "child" is pretty absurd when she is basically a soldier of military age in her world and even more absurd given she can just look with her special eyes and turn a dragon into a statue. That's not normal.'' I would argue there is nothing less logical, and hazardous to one’s well being than directly defying an order from Salem. We’ve seen Salem react with disappointment, violence, abandonment and murder when a subordinate merely fails to meet their directive (e.g. Tyrian, Hazel, Cinder, and Lionheart, respectively). How do you think she’ll react when a subordinate willfully disobeys? I have a feeling she won’t take it well.

And if Cinder’s quest to exact revenge on Ruby were to interfere with Watts and co. obtaining the relic from Atlas, well, I could see Salem doing far worse than simply murdering Cinder. So, if I were counseling Cinder on her life choices, I would strongly advise against her current quest to kill Ruby. She might as well be playing Russian roulette at this point.

I think that Salem values trust above most other things. When Ozma betrayed her trust and tried to leave, she violently lashed out and killed her own children in a fit of rage. That is a person who cannot handle breaches of trust. To react so chaotically and in a manner so careless of the wellbeing of something so precious, well, I wouldn’t want to cause her to lose faith in me.

As for Ruby being a child, well, she is literally a child, by legal definitions. So calling her a child is more an objective statement of fact than absurd. The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote:

''This is essentially what I said, but I also think it is too much a black-and-white mindset here. People who might otherwise be good can, in the real world, easily be pulled into doing horrible things. I think a major factor with Team WTCH is that most of them are people who would, had their story played out normally, generally been good people. Tyrian is the one exception since his inspiration is basically someone who, by nature, will always cause needless harm to others.'' I agree with you here. I, too, think that a lot of the talk on these forums is far too black and white with regard to Cinder. Some people describe her as evil incarnate (which is ridiculous), and others describe her as a more sympathetic character, or at the very least having potential for being sympathetic (which is wildly unlikely).

The truth is, Cinder isn’t the Devil, and she isn’t sympathetic. She’s a person who had the potential to be good, but simply chose not to, and never looked back. Whatever she was as a child, whatever her potential, she simply took a different path. Could she have been coerced, threatened, or manipulated to take that path? Sure. But the choice is still ultimately hers, and it’s not a one-time choice. She could stop and reform herself at literally any moment,  But she consistently, and repeatedly chooses not to. We have to, all of us, accept that.

I’m actually closer, Advocate, to you on this issue than you might think. I actually wish Cinder were a more sympathetic, remorseful villain. I hate the way she’s currently written. I hate the fact that she never struggles with the horrible things she does. I hate that she’s so shallow in her villainy. I wish she were more dynamic.

But she’s not.

I’ve come to terms with the fact that the writers of this show took Cinder in a different direction than I wanted them to. It’s entirely their choice, and I have no agency to stop them. The only thing I can do is accept it and move on. And I have. I strongly recommend you do the same. Because no matter how much we may want Cinder to turn it all around and find redemption, it’s just not likely to happen. Some people, I’ve found, are just too far gone.