My problem with The Dragon Prince is that while it preaches about "breaking the cycle" and "choosing love", it repeatedly does so in a way that echoes the age-old idea of telling victims to passively accept their lot in life and the injustices inflicted upon them while their perpetrators never have to acknowledge their wrongs or face any consequences for their actions. This is the kind of narrative they follow on both a personal and systematic axis, and it's exactly why the show will always frustrate me.
I completely agree with the stuff about Pyrrah that you said in your tags here about her not being innocent and what not. It almost feels like part of the reason the Pyrrah incident was handled the way it was was because the showrunners were used to stuff like HTTYD where there are "similar" concepts in the sense that the dragons who burn the town end up being forgiven and that the vikings need to overcome their ideals in order to accept the dragons.
The reason this concept works in HTTYD though, is because in HTTYD the dragons are victims too! A pretty major plot point of that film was that dragons were pretty much enslaved by the red death, it's very much implied that they didn't even really want to attack villages, they were kinda forced to.
In TDP, this isn't the case. Dragons in TDP are on the top of the food chain, they basically rule the world. We even get glimpses into their psyche in some external material where they think that "all things belong to dragons". It's a completely different situation, because in TDP dragons aren't exotic creatures that have been enslaved by a power greater then them, they *are* the ones in charge and TDP makes it clear multiple times that dragons are *sapient* (I.e, they possess the intelligence of a person and could theoretically learn calculus if they wanted to) which means they are a society of people and can absolutely be held accountable for their actions, especially when they are in positions of power like they are in TDP.



















