Talk:Rachel/@comment-45561346-20200421215805/@comment-45922392-20200527181614

People seem to think because a character with obvious motivations that aren't the good guys' motivations and acts on those evil motivations and has mysterious circumstances for those motvations definitively means they are great characters and people who hate those characters because they're evil are somehow simple. No, that's called the character being antagonistic to the protagonist. In this case, Rachel is one of many antagonists in ToG, we don't even know if she's the main antagonist, but as far as Baam/Bam goes, she's a primary one. We can praise the author for making her good enough for people to hate, but a good author should also be aware that an antagonist has to get their comeuppance at some point. All of the stories you can think of that were actually good story telling eventually do this. The ones trying to be too edgey or too unique (despite the oversaturation of such things) focus entirely too much on villain or morally ambigious characters and then try to hide behind the weak excuse that it's a portrayal of humanity. Yes, people do good and evil things, but most tend to lean heavily to one end or the other. You're going to meet people who either lean heavily good or heavily evil one way or the other even if they claim to be morally gray. You can find out where they stand on issues by raising issues with them. On something or another they lean either way no matter what they try to claim.