not judging anybody, but i find it genuinely interesting that so many fans categorize the fear avatars as either “good” or “bad” based on wether they feel bad about what they do or not, or if they’ve deemed their backstory tragic enough. because that’s literally something talked about in the show explicitly; wether jon is a better person than other avatars because he beats himself up about what he does. he still hurts people. he still feeds on fear. but he feels bad about it, so is he a more morally correct person than someone like helen, who shamelessly enjoys the fear she eats? is suffering righteous if it doesn’t help anyone?

there’s also the topic of daisy, melanie, and decisions. daisy chose not to feed, but eventually the hunt still claimed her. melanie chose to quit, but that didn’t stop or even interfere with jonah’s plan. they made the morally correct decisions, but in the end, it didn’t matter. but it mattered to them that they did what they could. i don’t think either of them thought they could affect the outcome; they made the decisions they made out of nothing except their own moral integrity.

none of this is a criticism or an opinion, just me rambling on about the magnus archives and how it handles the topic of morality and nature and people making morally correct decisions that don’t affect the world at all.