Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25266931-20161128203912/@comment-26018514-20161130093350

Alhazad2003 wrote:

73.Anon.52 wrote:

1.  As Arkantos said, assumptions are bad

@Alhazad: First off, as Someone said, that is a lot of assumptions, and at least some of them are bullshit

2. No guilt, does not equal "Complete Monster" while she certainly hasn't lived the life of a saint, she has a sense of duty to her "FAMILY", which she has been clear(for now) does not include Yang.

3. No one has made an assertion of "Complete Monster" except those of you who think she should feel guilt. Guilt(or lack of it) do not make a human character, mistakes do.

We can all admit she's made mistakes, but for some reason or other Raven can not, will not or does not agree "in universe". She doesn't have to recognize this to not be a complete monster. 1. It's as assumption to believe that Raven could not do as she pleased while she attended Beacon? That's not an assumption, that's a fact. If Raven stubbornly refused to follow the academy's rules she would not have lasted her first year, let alone graduated. So she had to conform to academy law in order to survive, thinking she could do otherwise is outright foolishness.

2. Even though said sense of duty involves murdering other families for what they have, something I can see Yang calling her on once she finds her later on. And we've seen how Raven reacts whenever she or her views are challenged, so it won't be pretty by any means.

3. No, but some are saying that Raven felt nothing about deserting Yang and Tai, so I question why she'd even let him get that close to her if she felt nothing for him? And the only way I could see that being possible was if she killed her own heart, but if she did then there would truly be no hope for her. Just like KNN005, I hate shallow characters too. We already have one in Cinder, we don't need another. Ugh, Forum ate my reply(the one time I'm too tired to copy/paste before bed), editing in my other responses after I sleep

Someone and Ark covered everything else so I'm just going to cover my direct responses:

1. That is actually multiple assumptions;

A. Ozpins leadership style is Laissez faire: "A non-authoritarian leadership style. Laissez faire leaders try to give the least possible guidance to subordinates, and try to achieve control through less obvious means. They believe that people excel when they are left alone to respond to their responsibilities and obligations in their own ways." The guy throws children off cliffs for breakfast, is he really gonna care if they do ANYTHING?(more stuff later)

B.

C.

D.