I have a question regarding something from Harry Potter, more specifically relating to the Dursleys.
Earlier, you indicated that Frollo only took in Quasimodo for selfish reasons and that his fearing for his soul is not a redeemable factor about him and is just selfish. I'm not intending to change your mind regarding Frollo or anything like that, just in case you're wondering. You have your views, I have mine, we won't agree on those views or change each others mind. I get that. However, that bit DID lead me to think of something from Harry Potter and the Dursleys, more specifically, why they even took in Harry.
In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, we learn that the reason the Dursleys were chosen to raise Harry was, aside from their being his closest living relatives, was because of a love barrier that was strengthened if they raised him, and Dumbledore inferred that their even taking him in was proof enough that they loved him. However, I can't help but wonder, how on earth did they even love Harry at all. They treated him like crap (their treatment of Harry was just as bad as how Meg was treated by her family in Family Guy) throughout the book up until the seventh book where at least Dudley actually stood in defense of Harry, and in the actual sequence describing it, it came across more that the Dursleys were more blackmailed into accepting Harry into the household by Dumbledore than, you know, actually taking him in willingly. Even when Petunia stopped Vernon from booting Harry out of the house after that dementor attack that forced Harry to break the underage magic rule out of self-defense earlier in the book, it was obvious both during that time, and later when it was revealed that Dumbledore had been the sender, that the only reason she even allowed Harry to stay at the house and stopped Vernon from doing that action was because Dumbledore essentially threatened her to "remember [his] last" in that Howler. And yet the fifth book indicated that was pure love and very redeemable.
What I'm trying to get at is, regardless of your views on Frollo since, I'll reiterate, I know you aren't going to change your mind on him and quite frankly I have no intention of changing your mind, I really don't understand how Frollo's taking in of Quasimodo is considered evil in itself and motivated by pure selfishness, yet the Dursleys doing so when they were essentially blackmailed by the good wizard himself to do so is considered pure love? At least with Frollo, he actually WAS trying to repent for a sin he committed. In fact, I'd argue that despite the narrative in Harry Potter emphasizing it was love, the situation with the Dursleys was far worse than with Frollo.
Well he isn't, just because a character's gender isn't stated onscreen does not mean that they are the opposite gender. Krebbs IS A MALE!! If you change this one more time, I will have you reported to an admin and they will deal with you. This is your final warning
I have a huge problem with the Complete Monster category and wish to see it destroyed if it can't be fixed.
Before I explain why, I want to make clear that I do believe in a black and white type morality, so my wanting it removed has nothing to do with greys. Actually, it's because I feel they did a terrible job confining to morality absolutely.
Take Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, for example: In the game, there are two villains. Both villains, at some point near the game, take a fully armed Davy Crockett launcher, and use it to wipe out a lot of people, and it is made clear with one of them that this was an immense atrocity. Only one of them, BTW, was a Complete Monster. Colonel Volgin (you should know him: He's the scarred Soviet general type in that video I showed you in one of our "debates"). And while I do agree that Yevgeny Borisovitch Volgin fully deserves to be a Complete Monster, I'm baffled as to why the other villain, The Boss, is NOT considered a Complete Monster despite doing exactly the same thing with similar motivations nearing the end of the game, DESPITE that kind of action rightly being treated as an atrocity (even though I have no love for the Soviets for what they and Communism itself did to us Christians), and in fact arguably had even worse of a motivation than Volgin ("Life's end, isn't it beautiful?" She said right after nuking the Granin facility and Groznyj Grad), and has more often than not implied that she was an utter nihilist. That's a major example as to why the category is simply a broken category. If it actually worked, The Boss would be in the same category as Volgin, regardless of whatever tragic background she may have had.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure myself regarding that.
BTW, you probably already know about how Volgin launched that nuke from that video I showed you earlier, so I figured I might as well show you the videos for The Boss, you know, just to make sure you have the full context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3jKd6J36UY (this is right before your final battle with her, specifically how she nuked Groznyj Grad and Graniny Gorki offscreen and her overall motives. And keep in mind, when Volgin did that to the Sokolov Research Facility, this was actually treated as a very heinous thing to do, so why would The Boss get away with twice that and not be considered a vile character there?).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pmMbM9cmgE (this is the post credits call[s] from Ocelot, which makes explicit that The Boss destroyed Groznyj Grad and Graniny Gorki, something that had only been briefly implied beforehand and yet brushed aside).
And that's just in her debut game. In Peace Walker, there's even the implication that she may have lied about whether she was actually part of the Bay of Pigs Invasion (thanks mostly to Hideo Kojima being the kind of guy who craps on his own storyline if he thinks he can make it more interesting like some sort of kid).