Problematic notion about Zone 5 & 6 story bits.

[Cleretic]

I agree that a little more time and space given for this narrative to breathe couldn't have hurt it, but it is what it is in the end. I'm more confused (and this is a tangential response to other posts I've seen, not you, for the record), given that what we got is so heavy-handed, that the discourse is so much about the so-called moral quandary of the central conflict, and not more about its lack of nuance.

Honestly, I'm not surprised, because I've seen this before: when a story gives the audience a morally ambiguous act, some amount of people reflexively respond with trying to reduce the ambiguity. Because if you somehow declare a moral right and wrong answer, then you don't have to think about the difficult subjects that a morally ambiguous question is trying to get you to think about. How people do that takes different forms; some people throw out evidence that's uncomfortable, some people create new evidence that makes their preferred side the best one, either by elevating it or attacking others. If the choice is binary, some try to invent a third option. Some people try to reject the question itself, either by proving it wrong or dismissing it outright. I'd argue that these responses say just as much about someone as if they actually engage with the subject on its own terms, but if they themselves are refusing to engage then those responses are missing their target audience.

We saw a lot of this back with the Zodiark and Hydaelyn situation; in comparison this is actually way more relaxed.