Foul Fire Rebel

Too many people misuse "morally gray" and "morally ambiguous", or conflate the two.

Here is the definition of the former:

Morally grey character or concept exists between absolute good and pure evil. These figures do not fit neatly into a hero or villain label; instead, they regularly mix noble traits with selfish actions, or commit bad deeds for a sympathetic cause.

Essentially, they're the chronic anti-heroes, anti-villains or wild cards. The movie that sparked this post does feature a perfect example of a morally grey character, but it's not the one who's causing the discourse. I can get the confusion with that character because people think they fall into the "commit bad deeds for a sympathetic cause", but their cause is actually ancillary to many of the bad deeds they commit, and it's a personal cause that only benefits two, at the expense at countless others. That's morally black but with a humanized, understandable and sympathetic reason behind it, not morally gray. Simply having a sad backstory and trauma, or having people you care for, doesn't make you morally gray if you still commit villainy on a massive scale without remorse. Moral blackness isn't just cartoonish evil-for-evil's-sake.

As for the latter:

Morally ambiguous describes actions, choices, or characters that lack a clear distinction between right and wrong.

Unlike morally gray characters, who can still at the end of the day be labeled as heroes and villains, morally ambiguous characters completely defy that labeling. You genuinely cannot safely call them either a hero or a villain.....or conversely, you can see them as both depending on perspective (ex: a noble, honorable warrior in a war is naturally considered a hero by their own side, but in spite of their honor and nobility would still be considered a villain by the opposing side of the war since they are advancing a cause that side rejects.)

A few examples of morally gray characters:

A few examples of humanized morally black characters:

A few examples of morally ambiguous characters:

MORALLY GREY: "Don't tell me you guys are still mad about everything that happened. I did some good things too! Korra, who warned you about Unalaq? I did! Bolin, who got you into the movers? I did! Asami, who saved your company? I did! Mako, who got you thrown in jail? I did! Oh yeah, I guess that was a bad thing." - Varrick, The Legend of Korra

MORALLY BLACK BUT HUMANIZED: "See, the thing is... I love this dagger. And I also love you. Both are possible. Look, you wanted me to be... a better man. And you've done that. But if you want me to be a different man.....I'm sorry. This is who I am. It always has been. Even when I was a coward, I craved power. The only difference is, now I have it. And I won't let it go. Not again." - Mr. Gold / Rumpelstiltskin, Once Upon a Time

More nuanced blackness:

More ambiguity:

Aang might genuinely be the most “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” character in Avatar.

If he acts like a twelve-year-old, he’s immature. If he acts like the Avatar, suddenly he’s too powerful and gets accused of having everything handed to him.

If he relies on Katara, he’s supposedly dependent on her. If he protects Katara, suddenly he’s possessive. If he loves her openly, he’s obsessed. If he had backed off completely, people would’ve said he never fought for her.

Even his biggest moral decision gets this treatment. Aang spends the entire series being taught that the Avatar exists to protect the world, only for practically everyone around him—including his past lives—to tell him that protecting the world means killing Ozai. But Aang refuses to throw away the last piece of his Air Nomad identity just because everyone else thinks it would be easier.

So he finds another way.

And somehow that becomes a problem too.

People call energybending a cop-out, but thematically it fits Aang almost perfectly. The Lion Turtle tells him, “Before the elements, we bent not the elements, but the energy within ourselves.” Aang doesn't defeat Ozai by becoming more like Ozai. He wins through an older, more fundamental form of bending that requires his own spirit to remain unbendable.

And the cosmic-energy argument is even funnier.

When Aang unlocks the Avatar State, suddenly it's “cosmic energy did everything for him.” Okay…he's the Avatar. Connecting with cosmic energy is literally part of mastering the Avatar State. That's like complaining that a waterbender won because there happened to be water nearby.

And remember what Aang had to do to reach that point: confront his fear, grief, guilt, attachment, responsibility and eventually the possibility of losing Katara. He didn't stumble into enlightenment while looking for snacks.

That's basically Aang's entire existence in the fandom.

Lose? Fraud.

Win? Plot armor.

Use the Avatar State? Cosmic-energy merchant.

Don't use it? Weak Avatar.

Refuse to kill Ozai? Coward.

Kill Ozai? “So much for Air Nomad values.”

Love Katara? Too attached.

Let her go? “See? He never really loved her.”

At some point you realize the criticism isn't actually asking Aang to make a better choice.

They claim that Aang has no character arc because he doesn’t fundamentally change his values and beliefs. That is because unlike Zuko, Aang has what is called a flat character arc. Many protagonists have this type of arc, and it’s a fairly difficult one to write and pull off well. Aang is just a shining example of it. His values do not change, instead he uses those values to enact change upon the world. Zuko’s arc had to be loud and in your face because it had to compete against Aang’s as his narrative foil. But Zuko’s character arc being more easily noticeable and understandable to an average viewer does not necessarily make him a better written character. That’s subjective talk.

Also, energybending wasn’t a cop out. The concept of blocking someone’s bending had been introduced. If you can block someone from being able to bend temporarily, it’s logical that you can do so permanently. The lion turtle was literally a representation of the universe answering Aang’s prayer. It’s karmic.

And lastly, the fandom argument that Aang should just kill Ozai misunderstands the entire core of the show, as usual. If you think Aang should kill Ozai, you are textually agreeing with Ozai who moments before that was brutalizing Aang and telling him that his people deserved their genocide for their values which he directly calls “weak”. Aang is a sole survivor of genocide who is struggling to preserve those values (which is the resolution of the flat character arc), and said values are pacifism.

Weiss: And, I mean, there just is no defense against that.