Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-35941743-20190304195312/@comment-26018514-20190714235710

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote:

73.Anon.52 wrote: Exactly, the intent of the plan matters, Vaders at least had altruistic goals(get immortality for loved ones, sacrifice few for the many, etc...) Cinder's are purely destruction and power for their own sake. You're going back to the prequels, where he slaughtered a room full of children who did nothing wrong at all. How on Earth do you think Vader is more redeemable for that than Cinder is for killing a handful of people and being part of a plan that may lead to a lot of deaths?

…

For all we know, she may have legitimate resentment against the Kingdoms.

First off, these weren't just children, they were force sensitive, that leads to a little more agency than your normal child.

Secondly, this is a tested IRL philosophy that the Sith embraced to kill these children, namely that if you leave the opposition's progeny or loved ones alive, they'll only turn on you later, so take them out too.

Is it misguided, yes, but it has a logic to it. Wiping out Vale, the least corrupt of the four kingdoms first? not even close. Atlas is too power hungry, Mistral is shown to be seriously corrupt and perhaps recently racist, at the least classist, and Vacuo is so disorganized it can't pull together enough to hold more than its own territory, destroying these kingdoms helps no-one any way you slice it, especially if it's land is made an unlivable hellhole, Salem's plan is at best scorched earth, not total control.

No amount of resentment legitimizes this.