The Rouge the Bat topic

[StaticMania]

I think Mechano's kinda bothered by how the plot says we're supposed to root for Rouge, but her actions don't really seem all that heroic...

 

 

Like I said, if she was acting on her own accord then fine, she's just an ammoral bitch...but she's supposed to be a good guy, even Antiheroes don't go that far without getting called out for it.

 

I guess since this was her debut game, they hadn't really established her characterization.

In Sa2 she was just a Jewel obsessed treasure hunter hired to be an undercover agent in favor of being paid in Jewels(treasure, etc.), and she was working under the president to spy on Eggman's plans as best she can, that's either just sneaking around without being caught or working with the guy and not blowing her cover.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I think Mechano's kinda bothered by how the plot says we're supposed to root for Rouge, but her actions don't really seem all that heroic...

 

Like I said, if she was acting on her own accord then fine, she's just an ammoral bitch...but she's supposed to be a good guy, even Antiheroes don't go that far without getting called out for it.

Maybe because we're playing the Dark side of the story in the game? I mean for crying out loud, we're playing the villains here which Rouge was part of at the time given the whole theme of SA2 being about choosing to save the world or to conquer it. There weren't any antiheroes in the series until the next game, and Rouge had already showed hints of her amorality in the game despite being the lesser evil of the other two in her group.

 

Not once was anything Rouge was doing suppose to be something we were rooting for. We knew she was a spy, we knew she was antagonizing others, and we knew that she wanted to steal the Chaos Emeralds and the Master Emerald for herself. The fact that she went in to Prison Island and stole the Emeralds of her own faction, and then wanted to steal them again from her new faction shows either how indifferent she was so long as she could benefit from it or how far she would go to maintain her cover (which is still pretty damn amoral). The fact that she even went along with Eggman's plan despite being a spy on their own team is another giveaway. 

 

How in the heck any of you think that was something to root for as a hero when we're blatantly playing as the villains I have no idea; if there's nothing to root for as heroic, chances are she wasn't being heroic, which is hammered by the faction she was with. Even if we're talking about GUN considering they were also an antagonist to both sides at the time to the point of arresting the principle hero at the start of the story for something he didn't really do.

 

Again, you're likely judging her past, debuting and more amoral character with her current, more caring characterization.

[Dr. Mechano]

How in the heck any of you think that was something to root for as a hero when we're blatantly playing as the villains I have no idea.

No, I'm fine with that. I loved playing as Eggman after all, and understand that I can enjoy seeing villainous characters as protagonists despite their goals being anything but noble.

 

Here's the thing though. Eggman is clearly a villain, so his actions can be chalked up to villainy. Shadow was a villain - in that his motive was to destroy the world - but he reformed, he had a clear moment where he realized he was wrong and switched sides. Since Rouge lacked such an epiphany of her own, it makes it seem as though she was never really that bad to begin with, glossing over some of the more heinous things she did during her stint working with Eggman. 

 

SA2 does a good job demonstrating Shadow changing and realizing how wrong he was, so his portrayal as a heroic figure in future games at least makes sense. With Rouge, it feels as though the writers of later games forgot just how bad she was in SA2, because we see her treated as just another good guy in most future installments, despite this sort of development never really playing out onscreen for her as it did for Shadow. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

No, I'm fine with that. I loved playing as Eggman after all, and understand that I can enjoy seeing villainous characters as protagonists despite their goals being anything but noble.

 

Here's the thing though. Eggman is clearly a villain, so his actions can be chalked up to villainy. Shadow was a villain - in that his motive was to destroy the world - but he reformed, he had a clear moment where he realized he was wrong and switched sides. Since Rouge lacked such an epiphany of her own, it makes it seem as though she was never really that bad to begin with, glossing over some of the more heinous things she did during her stint working with Eggman. 

It really doesn't actually gloss over things, because she had the least bloody hands out of the group. The most ruthless thing she did (and by association Shadow since he rescued her from suffering the same fate) in that game was destroy the Heavy Dog mech and leave the pilot to die, but Shadow was the one to plant the bomb that blew up the island and killed him. Granted, she knew about the bomb, she knew about the heist, and she knew a lot about the plans within the group bar the Colony Drop, but her heinous actions are so indirect that anyone could argue in her favor that she wasn't that bad since she wasn't the primary one responsible for it despite being associated with it.

 

Now if she planted the bomb, that would be a different story, because then that is glossing over her heinous actions and treating her as if she wasn't that bad. But what she actually did wasn't so heinous that required the same kind of reformation as Shadow.

[Tara]

It really doesn't actually gloss over things, because she had the least bloody hands out of the group. The most ruthless thing she did (and by association Shadow since he rescued her from suffering the same fate) in that game was destroy the Heavy Dog mech and leave the pilot to die, but Shadow was the one to plant the bomb that blew up the island and killed him. Granted, she knew about the bomb, she knew about the heist, and she knew a lot about the plans within the group bar the Colony Drop, but her heinous actions are so indirect that anyone could argue in her favor that she wasn't that bad since she wasn't the primary one responsible for it despite being associated with it.

 

Now if she planted the bomb, that would be a different story, because then that is glossing over her heinous actions and treating her as if she wasn't that bad. But what she actually did wasn't so heinous that required the same kind of reformation as Shadow.

I fail to see how that makes her any less guilty, honestly.  That's like saying the guy who drives the getaway car is somehow less of a criminal than the guy who robs the bank.  It's still a contribution to the overall crime and, under ideal jurisdiction, should be treated as such.

 

Even if she was somehow "less guilty," I can see Mechano's disdain in how she's portrayed as not guilty to any extent.  Even if that's something that she has to do in the line of duty, the fact that it's never even addressed is pretty jarring, especially since you would think that she was spying on Eggman to prevent such a thing from happening.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I fail to see how that makes her any less guilty, honestly. That's like saying the guy who drives the getaway car is somehow less of a criminal than the guy who robs the bank. It's still a contribution to the overall crime and, under ideal jurisdiction, should be treated as such.

Except the guy who robbed the bank would be more heavily punished than the guy driving the getaway car. So basically you're saying that the accomplice who commits the lesser crime deserves the exact same sentence as the the guy who did the greater crime regardless of the difference in action; so if the robber does something that earns him a life sentence such as murdering someone in the bank, the driver who commits no such murder and simply helps the driver escape equally deserves a life sentence as well instead of the punishment matching his crime. Is that really how we do justice? Is that really how we judge the characters as all crimes equal, even if you didn't directly do it?

Even if she was somehow "less guilty," I can see Mechano's disdain in how she's portrayed as not guilty to any extent. Even if that's something that she has to do in the line of duty, the fact that it's never even addressed is pretty jarring, especially since you would think that she was spying on Eggman to prevent such a thing from happening.

Which would be the case if she didn't blatantly say what it was she was spying for: to retrieve information on project Shadow. So apparently stopping Eggman had nothing to do with her goal, so she doesn't do anything about it or participates so she could get closer to her goal. The narrative doesn't make it a point to either apply or absolve her of guilt. She simply did what she did, without a second thought. That's not making her not guilty, that's making her completely indifferent to it hence why it isn't addressed. There is a middle ground here.

[Tara]

Except the guy who robbed the bank would be more heavily punished than the guy driving the getaway car. So basically you're saying that the accomplice who commits the lesser crime deserves the exact same sentence as the the guy who did the greater crime regardless of the difference in action; so if the robber does something that earns him a life sentence such as murdering someone in the bank, the driver who commits no such murder and simply helps the driver escape equally deserves a life sentence as well instead of the punishment matching his crime. Is that really how we do justice? Is that really how we judge the characters as all crimes equal, even if you didn't directly do it?

So if I see someone is holding another person at gunpoint and I prevent the victim from escaping, then I'm not just as guilty of the murder?  Seriously.  I'll give you that it's a circumstantial thing.  If there's evidence to show that the person was being forced into aiding in the crime, then I agree, the sentence should be minimal or none at all.  But really, deliberately aiding a crime by your own free will is no different than directly committing it.  You're deliberately making sure that something happens.  That's still an incredible offense, and I honestly don't see how it isn't equal.

 

Now, if the situation was that she went to rob the jewels, unknowing that Shadow was planning on bombing the place, then yes, I agree, she'd be the "less guilty."  but she knew of the plan and decided to aid in it, knowing fully well what would happen.  That seems pretty despicable to me.

 

 

 Which would be the case if she didn't blatantly say what it was she was spying for: to retrieve information on project Shadow. So apparently stopping Eggman had nothing to do with her goal, so she doesn't do anything about it or participates so she could get closer to her goal. The narrative doesn't make it a point to either apply or absolve her of guilt. She simply did what she did, without a second thought. That's not making her not guilty, that's making her completely indifferent to it hence why it isn't addressed. There is a middle ground here.

And she was researching Shadow why?  Maybe to prevent a larger problem from happening?  I don't know.  Still seems pretty backwards to me.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

So if I see someone is holding another person at gunpoint and I prevent the victim from escaping, then I'm not just as guilty of the murder? Seriously.

...What? That is a completely different scenario to the one I gave, and yes you are a lot more guilty. You may not have pulled the trigger, but you'll likely get a comparable sentence for it.

I'll give you that it's a circumstantial thing. If there's evidence to show that the person was being forced into aiding in the crime, then I agree, the sentence should be minimal or none at all. But really, deliberately aiding a crime by your own free will is no different than directly committing it. You're deliberately making sure that something happens. That's still an incredible offense, and I honestly don't see how it isn't equal.

Yes it is different. That's why we have completely different types of crimes and different levels of sentencing for different circumstances for them instead of punishing them all the same. You don't punish the person with the same exact sentence as the guy who did the worst crime, whether aiding or not. That is a twisted sense of justice; you punish them for their contributions to it. If someone just drives the getaway car from a robbery, you punish them for assisting the crime and theft; if someone robs the bank, murders someone in the process, damages property, and gets away you punish them for murder, vandalism, and theft, all together is a far greater sentence than the person driving the getaway vehicle. And this isn't even getting into the morally grey area of spying that allows even greater leeway or punishment over the crimes depending on the circumstances.

Now, if the situation was that she went to rob the jewels, unknowing that Shadow was planning on bombing the place, then yes, I agree, she'd be the "less guilty." but she knew of the plan and decided to aid in it, knowing fully well what would happen. That seems pretty despicable to me.

well it doesn't work that way. Knowledge of the crime has its own level of sentencing, which isn't the same as actually doing the crime someone else did alongside them. In this scenario, Rouge would be punished for theft, vandalism, and assisting the crime while Shadow would be punished for vandalism, arson, murder, and assisting the crime. Only two of their crimes are equal.

And she was researching Shadow why? Maybe to prevent a larger problem from happening? I don't know. Still seems pretty backwards to me.

It doesn't exactly tell us why she was researching it to my knowledge, just that she was under orders to do so by the president. Maybe she was trying to stop a problem or she was unraveling a 50 year old conspiracy that needed clarification; it could be a number of things, but it was left int the dark

[Splash the Otter]

Except the guy who robbed the bank would be more heavily punished than the guy driving the getaway car. So basically you're saying that the accomplice who commits the lesser crime deserves the exact same sentence as the the guy who did the greater crime regardless of the difference in action; so if the robber does something that earns him a life sentence such as murdering someone in the bank, the driver who commits no such murder and simply helps the driver escape equally deserves a life sentence as well instead of the punishment matching his crime. Is that really how we do justice? Is that really how we judge the characters as all crimes equal, even if you didn't directly do it?

Thing is, the guy driving the getaway car would still face charges of some kind because regardless of how involved he was in the crime, he was still an accomplice. And even if Rouge hadn't been working with Dr. Eggman, the fact remains that she robbed a military base.

[Tara]

...What?

That is a completely different scenario to the one I gave, and yes you are a lot more guilty. You may not have pulled the trigger, but you'll likely get a comparable sentence for it.

No it's not.  In either case, you are still deliberately making sure that something happens.

 

 

Yes it is different. That's why we have completely different types of crimes and different levels of sentencing for different circumstances for them instead of punishing them all the same. You don't punish the person with the same exact sentence as the guy who did the worst crime, whether aiding or not. That is a twisted sense of justice; you punish them for their contributions to it. If someone just drives the getaway car from a robbery, you punish them for assisting the crime and theft; if someone robs the bank, murders someone in the process, damages property, and gets away you punish them for murder, vandalism, and theft, all together is a far greater sentence than the person driving the getaway vehicle.

I still don't see how that's any different, nor do I get how it is twisted to punish someone based on how they're clearly not only aiding in the crime in question, but making sure it happens successfully.  Further, my argument isn't that she should be charged exactly the same (though I could argue that she should be considering all the GUN robots she destroyed and the pilot she allowed to die as a result of her accompaniment), but that from an ethical standpoint, she's hardly any less guilty.  Not to mention, that her amount of guilt is irrelevant to the fact that she is guilty regardless of the volume by comparison.

 

 

well it doesn't work that way. Knowledge of the crime has its own level of sentencing, which isn't the same as actually doing the crime someone else did alongside them. In this scenario, Rouge would be punished for theft, vandalism, and assisting the crime while Shadow would be punished for vandalism, arson, murder, and assisting the crime. Only two of their crimes are equal.

But it certainly says a lot about her character that she decided to go through the premeditated plan of destroying an entire military facility.

 

It doesn't exactly tell us why she was researching it to my knowledge, just that she was under orders to do so by the president. Maybe she was trying to stop a problem or she was unraveling a 50 year old conspiracy that needed clarification; it could be a number of things, but it was left int the dark

Which only makes it more disconcerting, but at least we can chalk that up to bad writing.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

No it's not. In either case, you are still deliberately making sure that something happens.

Yes it is a different scenario. I didn't say anything about the getaway driver preventing the murder victim from escaping their death, you did. i added murder specifically for the bank robber in the process of robbing the bank which is independent to that of the driver. The getaway driver isnt robbing the bank or killing anyone, but they are still contributing to the crime; their contributions aren't equal to that of the robber.

I still don't see how that's any different, nor do I get how it is twisted to punish someone based on how they're clearly not only aiding in the crime in question, but making sure it happens successfully.

Simply put: if you didn't commit murder you shouldnt be punished with a sentence for murder. Aiding in the crime still doesn't net you the same punishment or guilt for the contributions of someone else's crimes, especially if it's done independently from your contributions.

Further, my argument isn't that she should be charged exactly the same (though I could argue that she should be considering all the GUN robots she destroyed and the pilot she allowed to die as a result of her accompaniment), but that from an ethical standpoint, she's hardly any less guilty. Not to mention, that her amount of guilt is irrelevant to the fact that she is guilty regardless of the volume by comparison.

From an ethical standpoint, she's guilty for completely different reasons. And while she is guilty, the amount is every bit as relevant to the volume.

But it certainly says a lot about her character that she decided to go through the premeditated plan of destroying an entire military facility.

That she's completely amoral or willing to do what she deems necessary or that her superiors have a high tolerance of what they'll turn a blind eye to?

[Tara]

Yes it is a different scenario. I didn't say anything about the getaway driver preventing the murder victim from escaping their death, you did. i added murder specifically for the bank robber in the process of robbing the bank which is independent to that of the driver. The getaway driver isnt robbing the bank or killing anyone, but they are still contributing to the crime; their contributions aren't equal to that of the robber.

I didn't say that the getaway driver was doing that.  I failed to clarify that I was using a different example and not expanding on the same one.  That's my mistake, but I still don't see it as different.  In both instances, you are still a team working together for a common cause, and should be judged for those actions.  It's when those actions completely deviate from the rest of the group (i.e. only one person in the robbery is armed, or if they're all armed, only one them) that I feel it should be seen as a vastly different crime.  The point is that the getaway driver is still setting the stage to make sure the actual robber is successful.

 

 

 

Simply put: if you didn't commit murder you shouldnt be punished with a sentence for murder. Aiding in the crime still doesn't net you the same punishment or guilt for the contributions of someone else's crimes, especially if it's done independently from your contributions.

 

 

Soliciting a crime is just as much a crime as committing, but regardless, it most certainly wasn't independent in this case.  Each member did their own thing with the same goal in mind:  Stealing the emeralds and blowing up the base.  Blowing up the base isn't something one of the members did on their own accord, it was premeditated that this would definitely happen regardless of who did it.

 

 

 

From an ethical standpoint, she's guilty for completely different reasons. And while she is guilty, the amount is every bit as relevant to the volume.

 

 

The fact is that it's still not given any light at all, and by the next game she's considered one of the heroes.  (Albeit, on shaky terms with the other heroes... for some reason... I don't... Sonic)  It doesn't matter how guilty she is in that case, because it still warrants being highlighted anyway.

 

 

 

That she's completely amoral or willing to do what she deems necessary or that her superiors have a high tolerance of what they'll turn a blind eye to?

 

 

Which is reprehensible on both sides, but the whole plot is about government corruption so I guess I can't fault them for that.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I didn't say that the getaway driver was doing that. I failed to clarify that I was using a different example and not expanding on the same one. That's my mistake, but I still don't see it as different. In both instances, you are still a team working together for a common cause, and should be judged for those actions. It's when those actions completely deviate from the rest of the group (i.e. only one person in the robbery is armed, or if they're all armed, only one them) that I feel it should be seen as a vastly different crime. The point is that the getaway driver is still setting the stage to make sure the actual robber is successful.

Yes, you should be judge for commiting a crime in a common goal, but it doesn't stop at just that. The way you contribute to that goal is what sets the differences in that, despite you assisting in the crime, unless you did the exact same actions you're not going to be guilt on the exact same level. Even with the getaway driver setting the stage to make sure it's successful, his actions are not of the same gravity as the one directly robbing the bank.

Soliciting a crime is just as much a crime as committing,

Soliciting a crime is completely different from commiting one, otherwise it would be punished the exact same as commiting it, making it pointless to set them apart from each other.

but regardless, it most certainly wasn't independent in this case. Each member did their own thing with the same goal in mind: Stealing the emeralds and blowing up the base. Blowing up the base isn't something one of the members did on their own accord, it was premeditated that this would definitely happen regardless of who did it.

Yes that still doesn't make the guilty of the same crime when each one went about it different despite working together.

[Kuzu]

So when the hell did this turn into a morality debate?

[Tara]

Yes, you should be judge for commiting a crime in a common goal, but it doesn't stop at just that. The way you contribute to that goal is what sets the differences in that, despite you assisting in the crime, unless you did the exact same actions you're not going to be guilt on the exact same level. Even with the getaway driver setting the stage to make sure it's successful, his actions are not of the same gravity as the one directly robbing the bank.

Soliciting a crime is completely different from commiting one, otherwise it would be punished the exact same as commiting it, making it pointless to set them apart from each other.

Yes that still doesn't make the guilty of the same crime when each one went about it different despite working together.

Fine, I guess we can agree to disagree on the specifics as long as we can agree that she is still guilty to some degree.  In any case, I personally wouldn't hold her to any higher any moral ground or find her any less of a criminal.  But as Yakuzu pointed out, we're sort of getting off the subject of Rouge specifically, so... yeah.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Fine, I guess we can agree to disagree on the specifics as long as we can agree that she is still guilty to some degree.

I can't say we can simply because that's not how justice systems work unless it's a draconian one where all crimes are equal. We don't live with that system, and I don't think the character's in SA2 do either (although considering how almost everyone was doing something illegal even in comparison to our world that's a moot point).

We can certainly agree she's guilty to a degree, but even paralleling their crimes in the real world you really can't say what Rouge did should be seen no different as what Shadow or Eggman did, because I can guarantee you it won't be treated like that regardless of how you feel.

In any case, I personally wouldn't hold her to any higher any moral ground or find her any less of a criminal.

...

You realize you're saying that about a character who, despite having standards, fits an archetype that's all about potentially crossing the line into criminal behavior, who's occupation as a spy is all about doing morally ambiguous actions or is about doing crimes to get a job done without a second thought unless said actions put her standards at risk? (Unless she didn't have standards)

I mean, who here was justifying she held a moral high ground? Especially considering the group she was working with?

But as Yakuzu pointed out, we're sort of getting off the subject of Rouge specifically, so... yeah.

Not really, this discussion was about her and her actions, so doesn't that still fall under the topic's umbrella?

[Tara]

I can't say we can simply because that's not how justice systems work unless it's a draconian one where all crimes are equal. We don't live with that system, and I don't think the character's in SA2 do either (although considering how almost everyone was doing something illegal even in comparison to our world that's a moot point).

We can certainly agree she's guilty to a degree, but even paralleling their crimes in the real world you really can't say what Rouge did should be seen no different as what Shadow or Eggman did, because I can guarantee you it won't be treated like that regardless of how you feel.

I can't say her crimes are no different, but I still nevertheless feel that part of her going through with a premeditated plan that she knew involved destruction of military property and the cost of countless lives leaves it her at ethically equal guilt.  I certainly wouldn't expect the legal system to act upon it that way for two reasons:  1) They don't have the luxury of knowing her exact involvement in the plan, considering that if this happened in the real world we wouldn't have the luxury of exposition cutscenes that we can continuously refer to.  2) The legal system is hardly perfect to any degree.

 

If this were a real life scenario, I'd agree with you based on the first point alone, but since we do have the luxury of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Rouge is definitely guilty and had all the intention of allowing the plans to follow through even if Shadow or Eggman had failed to follow through with their own part, then I'd say she's equally guilty.

 

 

 

...

You realize you're saying that about a character who, despite having standards, fits an archetype that's all about potentially crossing the line into criminal behavior, who's occupation as a spy is all about doing morally ambiguous actions or is about doing crimes to get a job done without a second thought unless said actions put her standards at risk? (Unless she didn't have standards)

I mean, who here was justifying she held a moral high ground? Especially considering the group she was working with?

 

 

Nobody, which is why it's disconcerting that it was never addressed and she's treated as good guy later on.  That's the whole point of this discussion.  Even morally ambiguous characters have moments where their wrongdoings are shown to have repercussions, Shadow and Eggman included (though not very well).  This is especially jarring because government corruption and the expense of human life are pretty big themes in the story.

 

 

Not really, this discussion was about her and her actions, so doesn't that still fall under the topic's umbrella?

 

 

I suppose.  I'm not saying we have to stop talking about it altogether, just making sure we keep it tied to Rouge in some way.  That is, I don't want it to devolve back into that sexism debate again. XP

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I can't say her crimes are no different, but I still nevertheless feel that part of her going through with a premeditated plan that she knew involved destruction of military property and the cost of countless lives leaves it her at ethically equal guilt. 

Exactly what is the value in her being "ethically" guilty when she fills an occupation that doesn't or even cannot afford to give a damn about such ethics? Because despite us knowing it's a crime, I don't get where equal guilt comes from considering all the differences and specifics that differentiate them within that common goal.

 

 

 

If this were a real life scenario, I'd agree with you based on the first point alone, but since we do have the luxury of knowing without a shadow of a doubt that Rouge is definitely guilty and had all the intention of allowing the plans to follow through even if Shadow or Eggman had failed to follow through with their own part, then I'd say she's equally guilty.

Real or fictional, I find that black and white. Because that just ignores a lot of specifics and generalizes things, leading back into our previous debate that not every type of crime is equal simply because it's a crime.

 

 

 

Nobody, which is why it's disconcerting that it was never addressed and she's treated as good guy later on.  That's the whole point of this discussion.  Even morally ambiguous characters have moments where their wrongdoings are shown to have repercussions, Shadow and Eggman included (though not very well).

Yes, Rouge's repercussions being that she almost got killed in an explosion, blew her cover near the end, and unknowingly helped trigger the colony drop sequence that would have wiped out all life on Earth.

 

As far as being treated as a good guy, a lot of that has to do with even greater threats that didn't have her bearing responsibility for setting them in motion like that in SA2. At least with what screentime she was given, that is.

[Tara]

Exactly what is the value in her being "ethically" guilty when she fills an occupation that doesn't or even cannot afford to give a damn about such ethics? Because despite us knowing it's a crime, I don't get where equal guilt comes from considering all the differences and specifics that differentiate them within that common goal.

There is none... to her.  To the audience, however, and to the parties involved, we've had it hammered it in our brain that the military's ruthlessly killing Maria to cover up the ARK was wrong, and then when Rouge harms innocent people, the audience is supposed to turn a blind eye to it at the end, as if to suggest "it's okay, because she was really on the side of good the whole time!"  To me, that conflicts with many of the themes in the story and just makes her sudden 180 a little grating.

 

 

 

Real or fictional, I find that black and white. Because that just ignores a lot of specifics and generalizes things, leading back into our previous debate that not every type of crime is equal simply because it's a crime.

 

 

I actually find your way of thinking to be much more black and white.  I never said that every crime is equal simply because it's a crime, but the way you're saying it sounds like you're saying every instance of a specific crime has consequences solely based on the infractions in question and no other variables.  That fails into account context and the consequences of said actions.  I'd charge with a much higher felony if their actions were contributive to an overall worse outcome than I would someone who commits the same crimes on their own accord.  Basically, robbing a military base is wrong on its own account, but doing it to further the plans of a terrorist who wishes to bomb said base and then use the stolen possession for God knows what is inexcusable.

 

Plus, even if you excuse it as being part of Rouge's personalty, her superior's turning a blind eye to it is still pretty jarring.  Since she's a government agent, you know, and you kind of want to avoid eliminating government assets, since the intel she's providing, in theory, is supposed to benefit the government.  If it really is just a conspiracy theory that the government wanted to finally bring closure to, then that's some pretty steep lengths they're willing to go.

 

 

 

Yes, Rouge's repercussions being that she almost got killed in an explosion, blew her cover near the end, and unknowingly helped trigger the colony drop sequence that would have wiped out all life on Earth.

 

 

And where is that contemplated or seen as her own form irony?  I'd argue that the way the scene plays out (which is just my interpretation, though the frankly horrible direction makes it hard to tell), it sort of makes it sound like it's a travesty, with the blame belonging to no one else but Gerald (and maybe Eggman, but we don't see any stated or implied "what have I done?" moment to indicate that the action was indeed his fault... but I guess you don't need it since we do see him deliberately placing the emerald in the slot, but whatevs).

 

 

 

As far as being treated as a good guy, a lot of that has to do with even greater threats that didn't have her bearing responsibility for setting them in motion like that in SA2. At least with what screentime she was given, that is.

 

 

I suppose?  She doesn't even seem the slightest bit shady in any future games to my vague recollection, though.  She just seems... you know... heroic, to a certain extent.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

There is none... to her.  To the audience, however, and to the parties involved, we've had it hammered it in our brain that the military's ruthlessly killing Maria to cover up the ARK was wrong, and then when Rouge harms innocent people, the audience is supposed to turn a blind eye to it at the end, as if to suggest "it's okay, because she was really on the side of good the whole time!"  To me, that conflicts with many of the themes in the story and just makes her sudden 180 a little grating.

Maybe that sudden 180 was because the ARK was falling and threatening global extinction? Even Eggman shifted to the side of good for that moment, and granted while he was always a villain and goes back to his usual antics I fail to see how it's grating for Rouge not to do so when the stakes escalated that high, and she goes and strikes out on her own until Heroes.

 

I actually find your way of thinking to be much more black and white.  I never said that every crime is equal simply because it's a crime,

 

Yet the whole time you've been debating this to me, that's exactly the impression you've been giving me...

 

 

but the way you're saying it sounds like you're saying every instance of a specific crime has consequences solely based on the infractions in question and no other variables.

 

No, just that there are differences and specifics in the crime that I thought you were disregarding and putting their involvement in the crime as equal regardless, like that bank robbery example between the getaway driver who simply helps them escape and the robber who commits murder. Granted, I simplified it, because I wasn't trying to make it any more complicated and drag it off topic, but the point is that while they're both involved in the same overall crime, in the end, one of them is definitely going to get a much higher and harsher sentence.

 

 

Plus, even if you excuse it as being part of Rouge's personalty, her superior's turning a blind eye to it is still pretty jarring.  Since she's a government agent, you know, and you kind of want to avoid eliminating government assets, since the intel she's providing, in theory, is supposed to benefit the government.  If it really is just a conspiracy theory that the government wanted to finally bring closure to, then that's some pretty steep lengths they're willing to go.

 

It really isn't far-fetched to have an agent eliminate a government asset if they don't want it getting into the wrong hands and causing problems. That isn't given any context as far as what Rouge was associated with, especially considering how excessive it was, but that you'd be surprised what an agent could be given orders to do.

 

Considering the things they did 50 years ago, manufacturing WMDs in a space colony, then wiping out the colony to close the lid on it without any remorse, completing other WMDs and keeping said WMDs in stock after wiping out said colony, or still having intel on overpowered WMDs for whatever reason lying around that led to a descendant of a scientist catching wind of it and unleashing one of them, I wouldn't put it past them that they were willing to go really far to cover it up. Now whether that would be intentional of the writers, I don't know...

 

 

And where is that contemplated or seen as her own form irony?

 

It doesn't? I just figured I'd mention what the consequences of her actions were like you wanted.

 

 

I suppose?  She doesn't even seem the slightest bit shady in any future games to my vague recollection, though.  She just seems... you know... heroic, to a certain extent.

 

Well she hasn't been given a lot of major roles since, and that's without getting into the shit writing that also came along.

[Sonic.]

The case that characters like Rouge not being in recent games is because they are much more based off comedy (not completely) and wacky storylines is that dark characters like her Shadow and the others that were in the games from Adventure 2 - 06 had darker stories (i.e. a character almost dying, that would never happen in recent games).

[Sparky]

The case that characters like Rouge not being in recent games is because they are much more based off comedy (not completely) and wacky storylines is that dark characters like her Shadow and the others that were in the games from Adventure 2 - 06 had darker stories (i.e. a character almost dying, that would never happen in recent games).

EVERYONE THAT ISN'T SONIC, TAILS, EGGMAN, ORBOT AND CUBOT DIED IN SONIC LOST WORLD. Every single living being on Earth/Mobius.

[DarkLight]

What about Amy and Knuckles?

[Splash the Otter]

EVERYONE THAT ISN'T SONIC, TAILS, EGGMAN, ORBOT AND CUBOT DIED IN SONIC LOST WORLD. Every single living being on Earth/Mobius.

What? The whole point of the game was to prevent that from happening, and Tails reverse-engineered the machine at the end to restore everything. As a result, nobody got killed in that game (or if they did, it was only temporary).

[Spin Attaxx]

Everyone on Earth died, then got brought back to life.

 

So even if it was temporary, quite a few people died offscreen.